Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 24 May 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions. See User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80#Please take a look at this for a previous discussion I had with administrator User:HJ Mitchell.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to follow me to other articles and is always disagreeing with me. Here is his latest edit to undo my edit. How did you find that article? He followed me to that article. I previously told him to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages but he is continuing. At the chiropractcic talk page I explained we should use secondary sources but he claims the the sources are great and wants to proceed in adding primary sources to the article when we already have secondary sources with similar information. He should not be allowed to continue this behaviour. User:HJ Mitchell previously indef-blocked User:Jayaguru-Shishya for disruptive behaviour. He is continuing to comment on me on the talk page rather than solely focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. You already asked that on 6 May 2013 at administrator Doc James's Talk page, where you appeared all of a sudden commenting my post that had nothing to do with you. I even asked you there to provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to? So far, you have refused to answer me that. You did all that on an administrator's Talk page, but still you bring these claims to WP:ANI even before noticing me about it (on my Talk page 18:52; on WP:ANI 18:48).

As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.

All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine, and Chiropractic. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.

Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: ,

as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: . "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Quack's interpretation. As his history suggests he in fact is being disruptive and claiming ownership of alt-med articles. This seems to be an attempt to cast jayguru in a negative light when in fact he has been respectful and playing by the rules on the talk pages. Also, quack is often trying to censor and ban people who disagree with his POV to limit the debate so he can continue to own alt-med articles. DVMt (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved but you have not moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a primary source and simplified the wikilink but User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverted my edits and removed the tags for the primary source and he has falsely accused me of violating 3RR. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to be disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread: . There is a complete summary of your behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to make false accusations against me. I started a discussion about the primary source and wikilink but he is continuing to refuse to collaborate. He is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack you have a long Hx of disruptive editing at CAM articles, have been warned as recently as of yesterday and consistently try to discredit other editors who have a differing POV than yours. This is a bogus report on Jayguru and it's simply an attempt to smear and get him banned from the articles at which he edits. Looking at the past, I don't see Jayguru being reported in the past, whereas yours has been constant since 2008. You broke the conditions of your wiki bail and do so with increasing boldness. When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, best to discuss it and resolve it as opposed to running to admins to try and do your dirty work. DVMt (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya made a fake 3RR report while your are continuing to misinterpret the situation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say block the user. Wales of Jimbo (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wales of Jimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dwpaul 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt continued to make unsupported claims at 3RR. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_.29. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the report, with the diffs, with your 1RR limit at CAM articles, you can see you're treading a thin line. Throwing around allegations without evidence would be slander/label IRL, luckily your anonymity here protects you, but your repeated attempts to smear anybody who disagrees with your POV is both tiresome and not contributing to a good editing atmosphere. DVMt (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at a 1RR limit. You want to misuse primary sources to argue against SECONDARY sources. Do you agree you made a mistake to restore the primary source? QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011

This user seems to have a very long history of continuous low-quality editing, and he's still very active to this date. His talk page has a very long list of issues dating back all the way to 2011, but his behaviour doesn't look like it's improved much since. He's also active on other projects, and I recently reported him to the admins of Wikimedia Commons for repeated unnecessary and low-quality hue/saturation changes to Wikimedia Commons images, however that's hardly relevant here I suppose.

I did some minor reverts to some of the recent pages (mostly about colours) he's edited, but when I noticed how active he is and how the vast majority of his edits should probably be reverted, I decided this matter requires administrator's attention.

For examples of these low-quality edits you could probably just pick anything from his history, but here are a few:

1. Field of view in video games, where he added information pertaining to analogue filmmaking which as far as I know has practically no relevance to the topic of the article. Also has some original research.
2. Fraggle Rock, more original research.
3. Kermit's Swamp Years, some sort of unrelated original research opinion thing, since then this has been reverted.
4. Clitoromegaly, the file's been since deleted but as far as I can tell based on the edit history where someone reverted it, it was original research and not actually related to clitoromegaly at all. ("WP:Dummy edit: For one, that image is of a penis, not a clitoris. Hormones cannot make a clitoris look that much like a penis, that big, and with the addition of a scrotum.")

I could go on, but really you don't have to look very hard to find more examples of this. One thing I'm not too sure about is if the guy is just a low-quality editor or an outright vandal, but in either case I think he has to be dealt with.

Turdas (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF suggests this is a WP:CIR issue. The editor's last block was for a month. I think they just don't get it. I will point out, though, that this edit by you was incorrect. Crayola most certainly does make markers (including a laser lemon-colored marker), as well as a modeling clay in that color. They make many products including glue, colored pencils, chalk, paint, scissors, and so on. I'm just pointing this out, even though HappyLogolover2011 has a serious problem with original research (including inserting commentary and failing to use references) that doesn't mean they are always wrong. -- Atama頭 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Said user contacted me on my talk page about this report, and in my reply to him I also linked him to the WP:CIR page, along with the no original research page. Perhaps I was a little crude in not talking to him at all before posting here, but looking at his talk page I figured we're beyond the point of talking reason into him.

About that particular edit I made, I posted it with a poor comment but I believe it is an entirely reasonable edit. Those colour pages rely heavily on Crayola's crayon colours, and use Crayola's "crayon chronology" as their reference (that link has since lapsed, but Crayola's website still has the same information -- perhaps I should update the article in that regard). Thus I believe it's quite reasonable to say that markers aren't relevant to that page but crayons are, at least until a good citation related to markers (with eg. accurate hex triplets) is found and added to it. Anyway, this is somewhat beyond the point I guess. Turdas (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had multiple encounters with this user and, while it seems that he is editing in good faith (to me, at least), I have to agree with what Atama says: The dude just doesn't seem to get it, no matter how many times people him that a certain edit he's trying to make just isn't a good idea. TheStickMan 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

HappyLogolover's response at his/her user talk suggests a possible WP:NOTHERE issue. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been a little over 24 hours since the last comment here, no resolution seems to have been reached yet, and I'm about to go to bed, I'm posting here to keep this topic from being archived. I also have a question, however: since I was the one to post on this board about the user, I've been trying to be rather tactful when dealing with edits by them until a resolution on this page can be reached. Should I continue waiting for this incident to be resolved, or would it be alright for me to fix some of the potential issues caused by their edits? --Turdas (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating thread to keep it from being archived --Turdas (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this has been pretty well resolved: HappyLogoLover has gotten a pretty clear final warning to cut it out. If he/she keeps it up, people are watching... and another report may issue. There's nothing wrong with letting this get archived at this point. As to waiting for this to be resolved, we aren't talking about a highly-contentious issue here... low-quality edits should just be fixed (without edit warring). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I'm no longer edit warring because I knew those would violate your policies. But those are minor edits to add info about a certain thing that also exists on whatever or something like that.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@HappyLogolover2011: If you can't verify the information you're adding by using reliable sources, that information does not belong on Misplaced Pages. If you can't understand the need for verification, or you refuse to try to comply, then you should not be allowed to add the information anymore. Also, never insert your personal opinions or preferences into articles. If you're looking for some place on the internet to display your original ideas, consider starting a blog. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for such things. -- Atama頭 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I will try using blogs for those. However, I may need to correct the spelling or such if they don't spell right.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Promoting Ugandan law firms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Ray Clyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.217.235.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The named account and his IPs (I gave only one example, but it is quite a range of Ugandan IPs) are on a tear creating Ugandan law firm articles. All of them follow a similar format. Some of them get tagged and speedy deleted, but others still remain, no doubt because of the pace of their creation. I don't feel comfortable taking action unilaterally, which is why I brought it here. (I'm not notifying the IP - it's fairly clear the IPs are either Clyde or a cohort.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Block them indefinitely, and see if they show any interest in returning properly, with an encyclopedic goal. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are articles about Ugandan organisations or Ugandan individuals, like for example Rose Namayanja who is a member of the Ugandan Cabinet, or Henry Musasizi who is (apparently) an MP in that country, not an encyclopedic goal? I've not seen the deleted articles for obvious reasons, but these stand out even at a first glance.

I've never seen a suggestion for an indefinite block for someone creating a lot of articles about, say, English bishops or members of the FTSE 250.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of a promotional purpose behind an account creating articles for all the organisations in a particular field. Some law firm has paid him to create articles about their competitors? Or what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but a bar association or national chamber of commerce would absolutely benefit from that sort of listing. Again, not saying that's what's happening, but it's entirely plausible. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but the account is also creating articles about politicians who are not (and have never been) lawyers... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I ran into a similar account who was very active creating many pages and categories of individuals of their country, mostly the people were in the entertainment and business fields. But it seemed to be more about raising the profile of the country on Misplaced Pages out of national pride rather than paid editing or some WP:COI. I'm sure this happens all of the time on WP but on a smaller scale. As long as the articles stand the tests of notability and WP:RS, I don't see a big problem. If there are dozens of poorly written articles, than action should be taken. Liz 12:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• What Bbb says. I looked at the user's other articles, and don't see notability problems there--but those law firms, they were nothing more than directory entries. That's disruptive, pure and simple. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So it strikes me that cultivating this editor might be a good task for WP:CSB, given an interest in creating articles on Ugandan topics is something we can only use more of. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems like the editor is trying to work with Misplaced Pages, and is making a good effort, but is desperately trying to get the pages to stay and be "notable" to someone who's likely unfamiliar with the country. Many of them are harsher reactions which create an even more critical response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, that's fine, Mendaliv--but what prompted my response here (and no doubt Bbb's report) is the IP editing. So that needs to be mentioned by any nurturer as well. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Be fair, as well: A LOT of new articles get deleted regardless of their merit as a subject, because administrators tend to judge very quickly as the creation rate is high. I remember back on Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly, Episode 34, where we were group-making an article, and had it deleted half-way through, despite a couple basic sources and a note saying we were about to work on it as a collaborative edit right then. Adam Cuerden 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to create an article. It's hard to create an article that doesn't get deleted within a week of its creation. But along with a few valid articles that are unfortunately deleted, I'm sure a lot of junk gets cleared out through the process. Liz 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Filling in obvious gaps in our coverage of country should be encouraged. It's a perfectly reasonable activity for anyone interested in that aspect of the country's life (for example in this case, a law student). There are two inevitable pitfalls we have to help people around : the likelihood the the writing will not conform to our standards, and the tendency to include people or things whose notability is not obvious. It would seem self-apparently wise to start with one or two articles on the most notable and get feedback, but this strategy seems to be rather uncommon. It's our job as admins not just to spot the deficient articles, but to offer the necessary advice, which is best done my personalized messages, not templates. None of us do it all the time: I try to do it, but often the best I can manage is try to spot [patterns, but when it is usually too late. We have enough admins, but we need more to participate in the work of screening new articles--and to do it properly when they're doing it. A reviewer of NPP or AfD who confines themselves to dropping templates is easy to mistake for a robot.

Given the pressure of the umber of articles and drafts to review, we all make mistakes. But it's not quite as bad as Liz seems to think. I know my error rate is under 5% for articles, and under 10% for the often much more ambiguous afcs. At present, at least 3/4 of the articles submitted in NPP stay in WP, though perhaps 10% of them shouldn't. At AfC the results are much more disappointing. Only about 10% of the articles are either accepted, or ever get improved and then accepted. But this is the fault of first , the reviewers who decline articles that would pass afd, and second, our inability to actually follow through are persuade people to make the improvements--probably about 1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(corrected a template above) Your comments are valuable, but I'd like to see some evidence of your stats, e.g., "1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable" (by whose standards?). I also think that you fail to take into account those users whose motives are not to improve the encyclopedia but to promote, and the distinct possibility that that is the case with this user (who has not edited since this topic was opened) and his use of IP addresses as if they are other users. I don't say any of this to push for sanctions at this point. If someone is willing to mentor the user, I'm all for giving them a chance to improve their skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing on Race and Intelligence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are various viewpoints on the subject of performance differences between racial groups. Some claim the differences are due to discrimination, or systemic disadvantage, while others claim the differences can be explained by genetics, and that systemic disadvantage is negligible or non-existent, going as far as claiming that minorities experience a performance boosting advantage relative to what they would experience outside Western nations. Looking through the archives it is clear that editors AndyTheGrump and ArtifexMayhem are well aware of these sources. They wish to state in Misplaced Pages's voice that minorities are systemically disadvantaged, rather than supposedly disadvantaged. Misplaced Pages cannot state systemic disadvantage as fact, it is an opinion. Clearly these editors are pushing a POV, and making life difficult for editors on the talk page who promote neutral reporting, by demanding sources which they know exist. Can they be asked to collaborate rather than play silly dishonest games? BeauPhenomene (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above contributor, along with Eracekat (talk · contribs), is attempting to replace a sourced statement concerning systemic disadvantage (relating to minorities including African Americans, but discussing a more general case) with a weasel-worded reference to 'supposed disadvantage', while citing no sources whatsoever for any suggestion that such disadvantage does not exist. A Clear and unambiguous attempt to spin the article, based on nothing but personal opinions, and in User:Eracekat's case a generous dollop of ill-thought-out original research. As the talk page discussion makes clear. multiple contributors have tried and failed to explain policy on the need for sourcing, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump knows the sources exist. Why is he wasting everybody's time? BeauPhenomene (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (comment actually posted by 98.176.2.34, 08:26, May 19, 2014)

Yours might be a rhetorical question, but what the heck. I would suggest that in an homologous sense it is for the same reason that one person's thinking is said to have "evolved" but the other person's thinking is characterized as being a "flip flop" or tergiversation. I personally prefer "tergiversation" because "flip flop" might inadvertently be comprehended as a particular type of footwear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, BeauPhenomene fails to cite a source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, Andy (if I may be so bold), asseveration without demonstration is worthless. If a claim is made it must be backed with the production of verifiable fact in form of reliable sources (for purposes of Misplaced Pages). I seem to be having trouble with indentation and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• At issue is this edit with the change: "A large number of studies have shown that systemicallysupposedly disadvantaged minorities" (with two other "supposedly"). Our opinions on "systemically" vs. "supposedly" are not relevant—the only consideration is whether "systemically" is supported by the provided references. It would also help to read the refs to see what wording they felt was justified. Another issue is that the word "supposedly" is a standard editorial comment to suggest that a claim is false. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative I suggested to simply scrap the paragraph due to it being non-verified (in addition to non neutral). I have read some of the references and they do not serve to support the stated claim because they also are opinionated. References have to be reliable, they cannot themselves simply state opinions. I have clearly stated the fact that affirmative action policies are the exact opposite of what the paragraph claims, they give and advantage, yet this is simply being ignored. How can a policy that has been around for decades and which leads to in some cases to 3 times as many African Americans than Asian Americans being accepted to college (with the same qualification) simply be ignored as not relevant. It is clear evidence against the disadvantage hypothesis, how could it not be?Eracekat (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, Eracekat is basing arguments on original research - though 'research' is actually perhaps not the best word to describe this ill-though-out collection of non sequiturs. As I have already pointed out, the existence of affirmative action does not preclude the existence of systemic disadvantage. And of course, the article isn't just about the U.S. anyway - the source cited makes it entirely clear that it is referring to a more general case, of which African Americans are just one example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A brand new red linked single purpose account on a topic which is notorious for repeated and constant long term sock puppetry even by the very low standards of Misplaced Pages in general... remind me again, why are we paying attention to this? Someone just found some extra spare time in their couch and is not sure how to properly waste it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed this discussion. I agree, it's a waste of time and I believe that BeauPhenomene is most likely a sock. The history of this article makes me unwilling to offer good faith. I also note that Eracekat has never edited a relevant article - he arrives here and then suddenly a new editor shows up to support him? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "new editor" refers to me (slips off the protection of a very nice, if I don't say so myself, tin-foil hat to enter paranoia mode so as to type what precedes this rather lengthy parenthetical aside). No, I know nothing of BeauPhenomene. And I would remind those who may be interested--"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is fallacious reasoning. Or, rather, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" as more appropriate (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And to settle the sock question I've started Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat - it is possible there is no socking here and thus I think this needs to be determined. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock or not, I think there is a severe problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. As far as I can tell, Eracekat has a hard time understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. On the one side we have published academic sources, on the other we have an idiosyncratic straw man and some questionable original reasoning trying to knock it down. Eracekat, BeauPhenomene, I strongly suggest you drop the stick and step back from the dead horse before a boomerang hits you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BeauPhenomene was blocked earlier today (not by me). Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes, User:John, but I have overriden your block to make it indefinite. I think the reason is pretty self-evident and stands by itself irrespective of the sock/meatpuppetry argument. NW (Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly ok, NW, I should probably have indeffed myself. --John (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Any potential range block to stop the troll?

• 41.111.112.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.104.40.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.238.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.174.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.114.94.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.73.129.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 123.239.118.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.62.228.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Is there any chance theres a range that would block this troll without freezing out half the internet? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• 190.184.229.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and another-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• and 205.217.255.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any commonality between the IPs... all over the place geographically, none seem to be proxies. Off-wiki coordination? Sailsbystars (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There've been more trolls, now on IPv6, do you want me to list them here? --Lixxx235 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider watching ...Theredpenofdoom.

Suzannah Lipscomb

Over the last year or so the User:TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly disrupted this page such that it is now a shadow of its former self. There is now a discussion to delete the article https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb. He started the disruption by by constantly inserting comments about the subject's marriage that could not be supported by appropriate references, despite being asked not to as the subject was separated. He then went on to remove anything that was referenced from either the subject's own webpage or her employers. The accusation of WP: BLUDGEON has been made, although not naming this user specifically, but it is clear that is who it is aimed at. The user's approach is often aggressive and anyone who writes on the comments page regarding the deletion is put down. It has now come to the point where the only positive way forward would be to delete the subject's page, diminishing her and allowing the bully to have won.MdeBohun (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the OP has made no edits not on the subject of Suzannah Lipscomb. In addition, they have not notified TRPoD of this discussion, as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this then if not notification: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible bullying incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

written on and copied from User:TheRedPenOfDoom user page.

Thank you also The Bushranger for pointing out that I've made no edits elsewhere. I don't deny this, I've tried to keep the page up to date and relevant. All was fine until User:TheRedPenOfDoom started his repeated disruption, as he seems to have done to any other pages.MdeBohun (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, Afd is on going, I don't think it is right to open same discussion on multiple boards. OccultZone (Talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Even TRPoD has changed their !vote to keep following the hard work of someone other that the OP. You don't want an article deleted? Fricking fix it. I'll say, however, that if User:MdeBohun keeps up their attacks and WP:BATTLE behaviour, they're going to very quickly find themself blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Suzannah Lipscomb itself could use some eyes, re potential violations of BLP, editwarring, etc. Another SPA, Lw1982 (talk · contribs) (already previously blocked for editwarring there}, has now taken to inexplicably removing the title of the subject's PhD. dissertation referenced to two highly reliable sources. They are currently on their 4th revert of two different editors , , , and their responses so far have not been encouraging. See their talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And now a 6th revert, editing as an IP to avoid a 3RR block. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

voceditenore is adding unnecessary details about the thesis. Who care what the title was, just that it was awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the person's subject-expertise, which is part of the point of a biography of an academic. More to the point, why do you care so much that you want to remove it? Paul B (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does the person who keeps adding it care so much that they want to keep it in the article? How many other academics' pages state their thesis title? Shouldn't the page be focused on their professional career rather than their student life? (Lw1982 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

I refer you to the following Featured articles on academics, all of which state the name of the thesis in the articles: Edward Teller, Barbara McClintock, Hilary Putnam, James E. Boyd (scientist). There are many more. In any case, please continue this at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...and I'll refer them to WP:BLOCK and WP:EW - just because you don't like it there, doesn't mean you get to keep removing it. Your reason is not one of the listed exceptions to being blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• - are there users here that are above the law? User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves for example and redpenofdoom - User:TheRedPenOfDoom attacked this person - Suzannah Lipscomb a living person with a wikia story because he didn't like it that a comment that she was married was removed - WP:BLP is clearly a problem here, eatshootsandleaves is supporting redpenofdooms contributions, well rather deletions to the life story just wants to block the ass off any user who is related, the user he should be looking at blocking is User:TheRedPenOfDoom - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• In detail - looking at his history - and wikia contributions - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves should not be threatening to block any user - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what happens when you make broad overreaching statements at ANI is that your commentary is generally discounted as hyperbole, as will likely be the case here. Present your concerns concisely and with specific diffs that back each of your claims, and be prepared to walk away if the reviewing admins and editors disagree with your interpretation of events or your desired outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

my objective was to remove the User:TheRedPenOfDoom control over the article Suzannah_Lipscomb and to get new editors input - desired outcome? this has been massively achieved - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves threats are worthless - as are yours ponyo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your response to my advice is to make more accusations flung without any actual difs to support them? Would you care to show me exactly where I threatened you? You won't be able to because it never happened, and in making such flippant remarks you've shown the quality of your input here. You can continue to respond, but I won't be reading it. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser Would you care to explain your comment, and try to keep it within the realms of Misplaced Pages and not Wikia (I don't believe I have ever edited anything at Wikia). I have never edited the article in question with either of my 2 accounts. My role in this discussion is solely as an admin on this project, and the thrust of my argument surrounds the removal of a dissertation title from an article - so many times that the person has violated both our edit-warring and WP:3RR policies. Edit-warring is a bad thing - that's why there's even a noticeboard dedicated to it. the panda ₯’ 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Soz I wasn't clear. you said, "I'll say, however, that if User:MdeBohun keeps up their attacks and WP:BATTLE behaviour, they're going to very quickly find themself blocked" - User:MdeBohun had very legitimate concerns, it was this threat to block that I objected to Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all what you suggested by your statement, and you know it. Legitimate concerns or not, as the top of the page says, your own behaviour will also be taken into account. I provided a very polite, dispassionate, third-party warning. So, meh. the panda ₯’ 20:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what are you talking about? EatsShootsAndLeaves (aka "the panda") has not edited the article at all, nor commented in the AfD. As an administrator, he was addressing my concerns over the edit-warring by Lw1982 to remove of the thesis title, and nothing more. Are you also aware that the editor in question, Lw1982, has now managed to insert the alleged married name of the subject into the article, despite their alleged concern to have information about the marriage removed? I know feelings are running high over that article, but really... Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed my opinion as the page is supposed to be unbiased about the subject's life and MdeBohun was using it to promote their acknowledged relative's interests and turn it into a promotional piece. (Lw1982 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

You tried to remove the title of her dissertation - which could easily make a reasonable user wonder if she actually wrote one - and keep adding the former married name she never publicly used, and you worry about another editor being biased? To me, your edits seem to be a clearly obvious attempt to introduce bias (ie. women are best judged not by their credentials but by whether they can catch and hold on to a man) into the article. --NellieBly (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NellieBly. I count 6 reverts via the IP & username. I see no promotion here. I see the page being changed a ridiculous amount of times for what looks like personal reasons. Thewho515 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

'Woman are best judged not by their credentials but by whether they can catch and hold onto a man' what sort of statement is that? Please don't introduce feminist arguments into this. The 'Lawhead' addition to her name is backed up by a reliable source, the subject gave a talk at her old school and the school wrote up her name she used at the time. (Lw1982 (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

It's a statement that pretty accurately captures the effect of your edits, which serve to diminish the achievements of the article subject and shove the name of her soon-to-be-ex husband front and centre. Funny that. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, we live in the 21st century, people don't judge you on gender, nobody cares if you are male or female and there is no social injustice towards women in the UK. NellieBly obviously has issues, otherwise why bring some feminist nonsense into the discussion? For the record, I have not named her estranged husband, that was TheRedPenOfDoom (Lw1982 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Religion-baiting by User:Barney the barney barney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) has made multiple derogatory comments about religion, Christianity in particular, the most recent of which is to oppose a DYK nomination on sole basis that the subject is a theologian. I would like an administrator to take a look at this user's edit history, because there are several very suspect interactions where he/she is really pushing the limits of WP:CIVIL.Ἀλήθεια 11:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to provide diff's where he violates WP:NPA. But the commentary of an athiest (if that's indeed what he is) is acceptable - he's not attacking a faith, he doesn't believe in the existence of a God (which based on your reasoning is an attack on a whole number of faiths). I read his DYK comment that he's opposing DYK on someone who got a PhD in a subject he disagrees with - which is his prerogative and his opinion. Why on Earth you're modifying his comments there is beyond me ... the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The comment in question is this. I'd say he's within his rights to observe that the hook is "dull"— I tend to agree— but the gratuitous potshot against believers is hardly civil. Personal attacks are the beginning of what's demanded, not the end. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with that comment, certainly nothing near a personal attack. This complaint is astonishingly petty. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm more concerned, however, that Ἀλήθεια's revisions of Barney's comments are in direct violation of WP:TPO (I realise that technically speaking DYK discussions are in the Template namespace, but WP:TALK specifies that it applies to other pages where discussions take place as well as the Talk namespace). Continued attempts to derail discussion by amending or deleting other people's comments is a pretty good way to get the blockhammer pointed in your direction... Yunshui _水 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sorry that I broke that rule. However, you'll notice this is not a complaint about a personal attack but that the user in question seems to be engaging in religion-baiting, and doing so is a breach of WP:CIVIL. My very specific objection is that he/she has put a link to the article for "God" as a piped destination for the comment "something that patently doesn't exist". I don't object to him/her holding that opinion, but it has no place in a discussion about the merits of a DYK fact. I accept the judgment of the community that the hook I've selected may not be the most interesting thing about the subject. I do not accept that in passing this judgment it's OK to take pot-shots at a belief in God. Ἀλήθεια 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney: please try to avoid causing offence to other editors by suggesting that belief in a higher power is somehow foolish: whilst you are entitled to disbelieve the existence of a god, other editors are equally entitled to believe the opposite. @Ἀλήθεια: please do not change other people's comments in discussions, for any reason. Since there is no reason for adminstrative action here - no-one's getting blocked, topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned for this - I suggest we consider the matter closed. Yunshui _水 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. @Barney the barney barney:, please accept my apology for initializing this resolution incorrectly by changing your comment. Ἀλήθεια 14:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I had closed this, but I may have done so prematurely, and perhaps Barney's edit deserves more discussion by others. I personally find it not blockable though in very poor taste (a kind of soapboxing with some intent to harm), but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Yunshui: I disagree. Religion seems to be a new topic to be censored at DYK.--v/r - TP 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Yunshui's remarks were a fair summary. I do not want religion censored at DYK, and think that Barney's remark was an unfair attempt to do so; however (as my recent DYK error report attests) I am keen that religion should be treated neutrally - which Barney's remark also fails to do. I wouldn't expect to see admin action for any of this this time, but if this proves to be a common pattern, then perhaps. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Opposing on the grounds that something is about a figure associated with a particular religion is questionable, but I don't think it's actionable in the ANI sense. The people at DYK should be free to decide whether such an oppose is invalid. Ἀλήθεια has admitted that the refactoring was improper, and apologized for it, so no action needed there. I am still concerned with Barney's comments... I don't think he should be calling Ἀλήθεια's refactoring "vandalism" or calling the DYK nom itself "religion pushing" (though I acknowledge it was something of a tit-for-tat in response to his oppose being called "religion baiting"). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I think there is not much else, really, to do here, other than to leave Barney with a slap on the wrist for making such comments as this or this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. There really isn't anything we can or should do about those edit summaries beyond a warning. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it’s not an editor’s privilegium to oppose an article about a theologian because he dislikes theology/religion. That would be equivalent to a creationist opposing an article about a biologist because he dislikes the evolution theory. Taken seriously this would be a major violation of NPOV, but in this case it’s probably pure disruption/trolling. Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. One, I regret to say, comments by purported academics can at times be among the most insane one will ever read. This can be particularly true in cases where, for instance, an academic might be saying whatever he can think of to defend a trendy belief of some years ago, like the alleged direct ties between the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus, who are now considered by academia to have been around 150 years or so apart. Not knowing the particulars of this particular instance, they might not be the case here, but I know of several examples in recent years that are of that type which can sometimes create problems here. And, unfortunately, particularly in religious fields, sensationalist crap, even sensationalist crap which has already been basically already rejected by the local academia, can sell big time - hello, DaVinci Code. If we had a theologian saying Jesus was a Vulcan, and some have said similar things, I as a religion editor would call that, um, things, too.

Two, I don't see the clear diffs here. What would be useful to see here, which I don't yet see, is the specific discussions involved, and the specific nature of the comments called into question, because, yeah, unfortunately, sometimes the opinions of Christians, even Christian theologians and academics, can deserve to be insulted. If someone thinks that there is sufficient basis to file comments of this kind, I think a user conduct RfC would probably be more useful and productive. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a Vulcan, but perhaps a mushroom? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Allegro's opinions on that matter have received very little support of any kind recently. Too bad. Holy communion might be a lot more interesting otherwise. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm astonished that a block is even being considered (at least by one admin) A block for what? For saying "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist"? Where is the blockable offense here? Anybody is entitled to have their opinions and believe in the tooth fairy if they so choose, does that mean the rest can't dissent and express openly that such thing does not exist? Seriously what is this, Conservapedia? Regards. Gaba 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see TParis redacted Barney the barney barney's comment claiming WP:NPA. I see a clear personal attack in the comment by Mangoe which was also redacted in the same edit, but I'd like to ask: where's the personal attack in Barney the barney barney's comment? Because all I see is his honest opinion not directed at any editor in particular. Regards. Gaba 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea why TParis redacted that. It's not a personal attack, it's a personal opinion. OK, it's perhaps not the most collaborative thing ever, but it's certainly not a PA. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The context it is in makes it a personal attack. Context matters. Had it been on the user's subpage or to a fellow editor who shared the same belief, then it wouldn't be a personal attack. In this case, it was intended to demean another editor's beliefs.--v/r - TP 21:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Which context TParis? I'm sorry but your answer is insufficient to explain your censoring of an editor's comment. This is setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can't openly state his opinion that there is no such entity as a "God" without risking being WP:CENSORED and/or threatened to be blocked by an offended admin. I believe you should undo your redacting of Barney the barney barney's comment ASAP. Regards. Gaba 21:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Let me think on that. Umm, no. WP:NOTFORUM. Barney is free to share his opinion on his talk page and user page. DYK is not a 'free speech zone'. It's for discussing DYKs. This is a project, not a place to push beliefs. If someone creates a religion article, they do not deserve to be harassed for wanting it to be able to be on DYK just like every other article. The Wikimedia non-discrimination policy says we cannot discriminate based on religion. That's not up for debate, that's a WMF mandate. No precedent is being set, this has always been the case.--v/r - TP 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
            • So the rigour of all academic degrees and disciplines is beyond discussion now? Or is it only religion that receives this privilege? How about a DYK on someone getting a Doctor of Bollocksology from an obscure college in my back garden? That beyond criticism? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It just does not matter what either of you think here. We are mandated to treat religious beliefs the same as sexual orientation, gender, racism, ect. Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural? I wouldn't either. What this is, is demeaning another editor's beliefs intentionally to cause emotional distress. That's what is happening and you are defending it.--v/r - TP 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • You are causing me emotional distress by denying my strongly held religious belief that theology is balls. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • This isn't about the DYK though. We wouldn't redact a user simply claiming, on a talk page, that homosexuality is a choice (it's their opinion, regardless of how plausible it is) as long as they weren't directly attacking another editor ... would we? Black Kite kite (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • (If you don't believe me, go and look at Talk:Homosexuality. We argue the point with such people there - we don't redact their posts. Black Kite kite (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • How is saying "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" harassment and/or discrimination? You saying "This is a project, not a place to push beliefs" sounds rather ironic given that you just pushed your belief by censoring his comment and threatening to block him. I have no idea why you think WP:NOTFORUM applies here, the editor commented on a DYK giving his honest reason for opposing it and commented how he does not believe a "God" exists. This most definitely should not be an open invitation for editors/admins who do believe to censor his comments (you were not the first to do so, by the way ).
                  "Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural?" Probably not, but 1- what does this have to do with this issue? and 2- I wouldn't censor the editor either. Incidentally, I wouldn't support an editor opposing a DYK on the basis that climate change doesn't exist either. Does that give me the right to redact his comments and threaten to get him blocked? Regards. Gaba 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Who have I threatened to block? Please provide a diff of the supposed claim that I would block anyone. I mentioned several times that someone deserved a block, but if you think I threatened at any point to do it, I'd love to see a diff. Climate change isn't a protected belief, sorry to say. Piss poor analogy. What does my analogy have to do with it? Religion is a protected characteristic in law and WMF policy, the same as sexual orientation.--v/r - TP 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • And absence of religious belief is just as worthy of protection as the presence of such a belief. Priviliging religious believers over non-believers is no different to privileging one religion over another. No personal attack was made in the assertion about the academic legitimacy (or otherwise) of theology which you redacted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • When an admin states "What barney said deserved a block", I take that as a clear threat of blocking. Saying that either "god" or homosexuality don't exist is neither harassment nor is it discrimination which is what you imply and your apparent rationale for censoring his comment.
                      And yes, you are setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can have his comment blatantly censored for stating simply "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist". Regards. Gaba 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                      • Admins are allowed to discuss whether editors deserve blocks without it being a threat to do so themselves. What you think is a clear threat of blocking isn't seen that way by the rest of the project. So no, you're wrong. Determining which articles go on DYK based on religion is discrimination. That's what Barney did. But play whatever silly pretend game you want, you're not convincing.--v/r - TP 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Theology is not, in fact, "by definition an attempt to study God". Theology can mean all sorts of things these days, sometimes it is used interchangeably with "religious studies". Quite often in Britain it is called "divinity" but some of the professors of it believe in God no more than Barney the barney. Just sayin'.Smeat75 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It is by no means a personal attack to assert that theology is an attempt to study something that does not exist, I find it hard to understand how anyone could think it is. Or are we now in a situation that as soon as someone asserts a religious belief all discussion or criticism of it is to be silenced? ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious epithets directed against a person or group of people can be considered a personal attack (specifically attacking an editor for having a religious belief, or attacking people in general who have that religious belief). Criticizing a religious belief in a general sense is usually not considered a personal attack, since a belief isn't a person, unless it's strongly implied to be directed at a person (someone says "I'm a Buddhist" and you reply "Buddhism is stupid" would probably qualify). But taking a stance like that could be considered soapboxing, or at least off-topic discussion, which can be removed depending on the circumstances. A person who is engaging in that kind of talk and knowingly derailing a discussion can be considered to be editing disruptively and can certainly be sanctioned for it. Not that I think this situation rises to that, though, I think it demonstrates poor behavior from BtBB and Ἀλήθεια alike. -- Atama頭 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we redacted every post imputing something about a defined group of people (Christians, gay people, Tea Party members, Scientologists, climate change denialists, members of WP:ROADS, whatever), we'd be here all year. That's not to say such posts are particularly useful in a collaborative environment, but I don't think you can count them as personal attacks unless you stoop to the levels of "All X are f***ing idiots" (or similar). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we don't make an effort then we're just going to let the garbage build up.--v/r - TP 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but context - and meaning - is everything here (see my post about Talk:Homosexuality above). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and in the context of a DYK, religion bashing and baiting is inappropriate as the dozens in this thread have aptly explained.--v/r - TP 22:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The fallacy here being that there is either "religion bashing" or "baiting" with an editor commenting:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."

which is definitely not true. Regards. Gaba 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No way it should have been REVDEL'd ... it was not bashing a faith, it was expressing personal faith opinion, and atheism has been formally recognized as a faith choice. the panda ₯’ 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be REVEL'd - it's absurd - but Barney wasn't just' expressing a personal faith opinion; he was also arguing that that opinion was a good motivation for not posting the proposed item. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not revdel'able either. I can say "I disagree with the Ford GT being nominated for Good Article because it comes in blue and I don't like blue" ... not much different from his argument at DYK ... in other words, not an argument the panda ₯’ 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The color of someone's truck isn't a federally protected character trait or one recognized by WMF policy. Someone's faith, or lack of faith, is. Reword your argument using one of the other protected character traits and then decide if it's a valid argument.--v/r - TP 00:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The revdel was probably a bad idea, maybe more than that, but if someone really wants to take action about that, it might be better to start a separate subsection to deal with that matter. And while I agree with the panda that it might not be an argument, it is fairly obviously a rather serious violation of TPG and kind of completely indefensible in the context in which the comment was made, which is reviewing articles. Yeah, I make lots of sometimes really bad jokes myself on these noticeboards, and they might be sanctionable in a sense, but I think most of the time they are kind of obviously at least intended as humor, and don't attack anyone other than myself and the poor souls who have the misfortune of having to deal with me and my smartass mouth. I don't think that there are necessarily grounds for sanctions against Barney either, but it might help if this thread were broken up into separate sections if the revdel is going to be considered for action. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been revdel'd and no threats of blocking have been made. Those have been either misunderstandings by Panda and Gaba or they were misrepresentations. But neither reflects the truth that edit histories and revdel logs clearly reflect.--v/r - TP 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but rather comments that display an ignorance about what theology is. It is the first academic field there was in European universities. There is no shame in that, no one knows every field that is covered in Misplaced Pages. But I would hope that other editors could consider his comments as not knowing much about the field he was commenting on and weighing his comments appropriately. Liz 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The question about whether it is or isn't a personal attack aside (I agree it probably isn't), there is still a reasonable question whether they were at all appropriate to the discussion, and I honestly cannot see any good reason to think anyone would consider that sort of comment appropriate in a DYK setting. The fact that he has made substantially the same comment there repeatedly could be seen as being simply vapid repetition, but could also be seen as being rather clear ignorance of TPG, which is itself not acceptable, particularly given that this seems to be the recurrent nature of this particular sort of commentary. I honestly can see some sort of sanctions regarding specifically being allowed to participate in DYK review, based on the pretty much inflammatory and rather clearly counterproductive nature of such comments. I would think a six-month ban from participating in the DYK process would be the one most in line with previous actions, leaving it up to the people at DYK to determine whether he would be allowed to nominate articles while being personally banned from the QPQ rules regarding reviewing other articles with a topic ban in place, and I would I guess support the imposition of such a limited sanction. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Barney's comment here doesn't seem sanctionable. To break down his objection: Anyone can start a theological seminary. You don't have to be an expert in any known doctrine because you could start your own. Therefore there is no limit on how many theological seminaries could award their first Ph.D. to someone; if we wanted to we could hold a demonstration and all do it next Thursday. I should emphasize that mixing casual religious opinion with votes on what to feature is bound to run into trouble eventually, but to prove discrimination you need to prove a meaningful pattern. I have not tried to evaluate whether you can do that or not, but you haven't in this thread so far. I should emphasize that how we treat "pseudoscience" and "religion" should be harmonious - we should not encourage people to lambast and discard information on discredited ideas in one while taking a sacred-cow approach to the other, but look for a fair and even policy for both. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the seminary in question, Westminster Theological Seminary, is listed as being, according to our article on it, a seminary now 85 years old in Pennsylvaia, with now an additional satelite in London, in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. Admittedly, being the first graduate from such a school is probably not something that would interest many, any more than being the first graduate of Boise State University or some other little known school would be. But I think at least some of the comments above from Wnt, while they might be applicable to, perhaps, a possible seminary of some smallish Christian sects like the Alamo Christian Foundation, probably don't apply really well to an established seminary in one of the three major Reformation traditions, in this case Calvinism. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As Smeat75 says above: "theology" as a field has multiple meanings. The one that Woudstra received his degree in is exactly as Smeat75 says: It is equivalent to religious studies—an interdisciplinary field focusing largely on historical and other literary criticism of religious texts. The one that Barney dismissed was theology as part of metaphysics, which is the study of the divine. But he even got that wrong. Theology in this sense does not presuppose that a divine entity exist, because even arguments against the existence of divinities are part of theology in this sense. Theology in this sense studies also the concept of the divine, and any hypothetical divinities. See Graham Oppy's 2007 book for example of modern day metaphysical theology. Oppy of course concludes that all the ontological arguments for the existence of God are failures, and so concludes in favour of agnosticism. Oppy and those like him have no belief in the existence of God, but their work is standard, mainstream metaphysical theology taught in almost every university in the Western world that teaches any metaphysics at all. I think most theologians in this sense are agnostics or atheists, not theists, and the Chalmers/Bourget survey bears this out to some extent. This has probably been the case since the time of Bertrand Russell.

I'm not sure how Barney's comment could be determined to be a personal attack or discrimination on the basis of religion. Saying that no theology is academically rigorous is incorrect, but is no more a personal attack than saying that no acupuncture, chiropractic, or phrenology is academically acceptable: It's an opinion about the rigour of the field. Everyone should be encouraged to have and communicate their opinions about fields, and we should all use our best judgement about the acceptance of a field among scholars in order to determine encyclopedia content. And neither is saying so involve any discrimination on the basis of religion. Excluding Ken Ham's creationist religious beliefs from the article on human evolution because they have virtually no acceptance among bona fide scholars is not discrimination against Ken Ham on the basis of religion. It's discrimination on the basis of exactly what we should be discriminating on the basis of: Level of scholarly acceptance. If theology truly had zero scholarly acceptance and only cranks took part in it, then Barney's opinion would have had a high degree of validity. The fact that Barney misestimated academic acceptance does not make his opinion a personal attack or discrimination, it just makes it wrong. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good points, but a think part of the comment also involved a piped link equating "God" with "something that patently doesn't exist" . While that is not a personal attack in the most literal sense, it is certainly rather inflammatory, fairly clearly irrelevant and counterproductive in the relevant discussion, and probably a violation of TPG, and there does seem to be a bit of a habit of such comments by this editor of that type. I also note that the subject of the DYK is according to at least one version of the DYK hook one of the major translators of a major version of the Bible, which apparently was overlooked. And, as some of the others have pointed out, sometimes referring to a similar case involving homosexuality, ArbCom seems to have issued some fairly clear prior statements regarding derogatory or insulting comments directed against broad groups of people, which might also be applicable in this case. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a small booklet about gnomes by Reginald Bakeley: On Gnoming: A Pocket Guide to the Successful Hunting and Cooking of Gnomes. Say some users were treating gnoming as if it were equivalent in terms of scholarly acceptance to the fields of electrical engineering or biology. Say someone said something like: "Gnomes obviously don't exist, so gnoming is obviously not academically rigorous." That's how I imagine Barney sees things. God is like the gnomes, just another thing which obviously doesn't exist. If it is the case that gnomes obviously don't exist, then this is a strong prima facie reason to suspect that the topic of "gnoming", as it were, is not taken seriously by scholars. That's not an actual policy reason for helping determining how we deal with content about gnoming, but it could be a useful guiding thought. It turns out that Barney is wrong about the scholarly status of views on the existence of God: Some experts on the topic favour the view that God exists, some disfavour it; there's a divided state of scholarship, not a unanimous one. If all you ever read on the topic was Victor Stenger or A.J. Ayer you may have a view like Barney's, though. That's not a behavioural fault, it's just an incomplete view of the topic. And all of our views are incomplete to some extent, because no one has read everything written on the topic of God. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference, though, is that gnoming isn't a protected personal characteristic under the law and WMF policy. We need to treat this exactly like we treat racism, sexism, sexuality, and gender, among other things. It's one thing to assert that God doesn't exist. It's another to oppose a DYK on that premise. Barney didn't put half the thought into his oppose that you've put into his oppose. His user talk page makes that clear, he has no respect for the editors. It has nothing to do with the academic respectability of theology. And if he did mean in his two sentences what you explained in two paragraphs, then his way of articulating it needs work and is disruptive.--v/r - TP 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

TParis is correct here: it's not a useful hypothetical. The characteristic of "belief" in something is not what makes this particular oppose problematic. It is because religion (of a subject or editor) is considered (along with race, color, national origin, disability, etc.) to be a categorically inappropriate basis for action on Misplaced Pages. In other words, the like hypothetical is not that the hypothetical subject believes in gnomes, but that he is from Poland, or that he is Latino, or that he is an atheist. And frankly, even if we want to stick to the belief hypothetical, what if the oppose were because the subject believed in climate change (and the opposer asserted climate change was a fraud)? Or as to the academic rigor claim, what if the oppose were because the subject held a degree in chiropractic (and the opposer asserted that field lacked academic rigor)? I think that opposer would be laughed out of DYK: these matters have literally zero bearing on whether the subject is an appropriate topic for a DYK. And as TParis indicates, it does not matter that we can read Barney's oppose in a non-offensive light (regardless of the plausibility of that reading): what matters is intent. TParis argues that Barney's user talk page shows his intent. While I am less confident on those grounds, once you bring in the plausibility of the alternative readings being put forth, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, you're left with someone opposing a DYK on the grounds of religion. That's just not right. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I chose that example because acceptance of gnomes and other such creatures is part of some Germanic heathen religion. That's how I know about the topic, from an issue of Tyr (journal). There is a brief mention at Modern paganism#New Age syncretism and eco-paganism.

The fact the Barney is succinct does not communicate anything to me. Maybe he's succinct because he has thought hard about how to condense his thoughts—succinctness is often the sign of just that. I don't presume that I've thought more about the issue than he has. Maybe I have a lot to learn from him on the issue; I wouldn't know unless I talked to him first.

At the very least his argument is far more than what either of you are saying it is: He's clearly saying that the DYK nomination is problematic because there is a problem with notability. And he is saying this problem with notability exists because, in his view, theology is not rigorous scholarship. Were this actually the case, this would be perfectly relevant point, because WP:ACADEMIC—which is exactly the guideline used to determine notability for a subject like Woudstra—depends on the subject taking part in real scholarly research, not pseudo-scholarship. Finally, he's saying that the obviousness of the non-existence of God is a clear sign that theology is not mainstream scholarship, because theology presupposes this obviously rejected view. His premises are wrong, but reducing his argument to just "God doesn't exist, therefore this person cannot be subject of a DYK" is uncharitable. If editors honestly think that we are creating and promoting articles on subjects on the belief that they are WP:ACADEMICS when they are not, we should encourage these editors to speak up. If they are wrong, then we can tell them why they are wrong. Either way, the community is corrected, or one member of the community is corrected.

The relevant example to what you're saying is that of creationism mentioned first. It's not discrimination to exclude religious beliefs from an article, we do it almost every day with regards to creationism and many other forms of religious belief (inimitability of the Qur’ān, resurrection of Jesus, etc.) The non discrimination policy is simply not about such editorial judgements. If we judge that creationists are not academically rigorous because what they are doing is just a form of religious apologetics pretending to be real scholarship, that's our prerogative, whether we are right or wrong. If the American printing of the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology derogates creationists (and it does) because the editors have judged that creationists are just taking part in religious apologetics and not rigorous academic work, that's not infringing any US law or any academic standards on non discrimination to which the WMF policy is equivalent. That's just the editors' judgement about their field. If merchants refuse to sell the book to creationists because they are creationists, that would be discrimination. Determining content is a separate issue. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Redaction of a comment by admin TParis

Following the advice given by John Carter I'm opening a new sub-section regarding the redaction of a comment by admin TParis. The thread above this one deals with the supposed misbehavior of an editor when he commented the following on a DYK:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."

TParis redacted this comment removing the "but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" part claiming a violation of WP:NPA. I maintain that this is a bad edit (or administrative action, whichever category this falls under) and that is sets a dangerous precedent where an editor can have its comment censored basically because an admin feels his/a faith is under attack. It is my understanding that I am within my right to express my opinion that any "god" doesn't exist just like others will claim it does, without expecting this kind of actions.
I personally urged TParis to revert his refactoring of that comment to which he refused. I'd now like to hear the input of others, especially admins, on whether the original comment of that editor should be restored or if in fact TParis is correct and it represents a violation of WP:NPA. Regards. Gaba 01:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I maintain that the WMF Non-discrimination policy prohibits the discrimination of editors based on their religion - which includes their contributions to DYK. Barney's comments were that a DYK shouldn't be run because of religion. That's discrimination. This isn't optional.--v/r - TP 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that you might be incorrect, TParis. I don't think it falls to the community to decide when something is discriminatory against "users or prospective users", and that it may fall to the Foundation to do the enforcement. It might also be questionable whether this particular action is discriminatory towards Christian "users or prospective users", though I think the broad language might be key. It's also not clear whether individual users are barred from expressing discriminatory opinions, rather than the Foundation and projects being barred from making use of them (i.e., whether the DYK oppose is flat-out invalid under Foundation policy). Thus, if the policy is being violated, the Foundation should be the group doing the enforcement. Regardless, I believe that we can view the policy as instructive... we probably shouldn't allow !votes in any Misplaced Pages process to hinge on any of the enumerated categories (i.e., an oppose because of the article subject's race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation). It just harms the project's credibility. Now, whether such an oppose is sanctionable... I feel there is (at best) no consensus on that. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your first thought would not be in line with Arbcom ruling in the Manning case. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Conduct_during_discussions: "Misplaced Pages editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." That seems in line with the WMF policy. As to your second, yes I completely agree. Which is why comments have been redacted and no one has been blocked. Repeated comments like that should be grounds for a block, though.--v/r - TP 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:RPA states comments should only be redacted when "to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I don't see which person is being attacked by Barney's comment; while Mangoe's is more clearly directed, as it's in response to the previous one, I don't see it so egregious as to be suitable for redaction. Ultimately, both comments reflect more poorly on the authors' than anyone else. While I condone neither comment per Voltarie's ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I've restored the comments. NE Ent 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yeah, that seems pretty straightforward. "Misplaced Pages editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their . . . religion . . . . Comments that demean . . . an article subject . . . on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." (Ellipses and emphasis mine). So ArbCom has held (7-3) that comments that demean an article subject on the basis of religion are grounds for blocking or sanctions particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning. So the remaining questions are (1) whether this comment demeans an article subject's religion, (2) if so, whether a block or other sanction is merited, and (3) whether ArbCom findings of fact principles are binding without a remedy implementing it against the community. With respect to (1), I believe it is demeaning towards Christianity. With respect to (2), I believe there is no consensus for sanctions in this particular case. With respect to (3), I will leave that to people more familiar with ArbCom procedure. And to briefly respond to NE Ent, WP:RPA likely doesn't apply if the ArbCom FoF Principle is enforceable, since it's outside the scope of personal attacks. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • (shrug) That's for the Wikilawyers to decide. But between this and the DYK-Religion snafu last week, I think this issue is going to hit Arbcom quite soon.--v/r - TP 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, my gut instinct would be that even if it's not binding, it's pretty likely as close a previous, recent assessment of community standards as we're going to get that's on all fours with respect to this set of facts. We would be remiss not to at least consider it seriously when evaluating what should happen in this case. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)It's my understanding per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Proposed_decisions that FoF are the committee interpreting the policies per of the decision in the particular context of the given case and not enforceable per se. In any event, the committee's mandate does not extend to making policy, so the applicable question is whether the comments are "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." WP:RPA. It is my opinion they are not, it is TP's they are, so I see it as up to the rest of the community to decide one way or another. NE Ent 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Even if you're right and that passage about proposed decisions applies to how final decisions are interpreted and applied (and I'm not sure WP:AP supports that), the fact that ArbCom ruled on a Principle (sorry, I previously misidentified it as a FoF) with such broad wording strongly implies that it'll be interpreted in the same manner should a similar case come forward. Honestly, most ArbCom Principles are stock paragraphs that are attached with almost no debate, and while this one was adopted 7-3, the Manning proposed decision makes it clear that the three dissenters preferred principles that would have the same, if not a stronger effect in this factual situation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh, and lest I forget again, the whole RPA thing is frankly a red herring; while TParis said the removal was for NPA, it's equally justifiable under this interpretation of community norms and principles. That the edit summary says NPA is at worst harmless error. And even if the principle is not directly applicable and not implemented through any other policy, just IAR to save time: ArbCom will rule the same way, don't waste their time. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Falsely accusing someone of a personal attack is itself a personal attack, not a harmless error. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
                • I apologize, I meant "harmless error" in its more technical sense, which is explained at Harmless error. Harmless error for Misplaced Pages purposes would be an error in procedure that does not create a situation demanding the action be undone. An example would be blocking someone with the wrong reason in the block log: the block is not rendered invalid because of that simple mistake (though the blocking admin should explain the mistake). But if there was some procedural impropriety, like that the blocker had been involved in the dispute leading to the block, then it may be rendered invalid. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support TParis' actions here. A case might be made that the comments were not an attack, but they were quite obviously pointy, disruptive, and irrelevant. It was the best way to diffuse a conflict in what should have been a boring, routine DYK review. Gamaliel (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Seriously, if you want to to de-disrupt and de-point that discussion, the solution is to remove both the comments completely and allow the DYK nomination a fresh start, not to maim the comments. Barney's claim that lacks academic rigour remains, but the current redacted state makes it impossible to say whether he refers to the person whose biography has been nominated (which may be a BLP issue), his field, his institution or something else. As long as the comments remain in their current reduced form, you can't really look past them, and I'm sure everyone looking at the nomination will check the history just to understand WTF was said in the earlier comments. --Hegvald (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite agree with Hegvald here. The original posting by Barney was stupid and reflects poorly on him, but it is miles away from the point where it would have been so obviously harmful to the situation that removal would be necessary (cf. WP:TPO). The current redacted version, on the other hand, is objectively harmful in two ways: it makes it impossible for people to follow the discussion, and, worse, it distorts the meaning of the posting into an implied attack against the BLP subject. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right. It would be more fair to just clear it out and start over. I think TParis's action was right-minded, insofar as to try and redact the minimum necessary to make the comment acceptable (at least in part to prevent any objection to the redaction being overreaching), but Hegvald is correct insofar as the result is something that makes very little sense. Just nix it all and start over. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support nixing them both.--v/r - TP 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • More or less agree with TParis here. Much as I hate using cliche, his heart and head were, apparently, pretty much in the right place regarding a matter which has, unfortunately, fallen in a gray area of policy and guidelines. Seeing himself, basically, put in a situation where he apparently saw himself forced to intrepret these vague rules, he made a decision, which does seem to be a not unreasonable one, although he probably could have asked for input before acting. Maybe a small sardine-slap (not a trout-slap) might be called for, and starting the discussion over, like proposed above, but that would seem to me to be about all that is required. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • TParis made a reasonable decision, given the vagueness of the guideline. The fact that many of us do not agree with that particular decision does not mean he did anything wrong. NE Ent 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hegvald's solution is quite sensible and since there seems to be agreement here, I've gone ahead and done that. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced of the academic standing of the college. Certainly, its London offshoot is not listed in The Education (Listed Bodies) (England) Order 2013 which lists bodies offering courses leading to approved degrees. DuncanHill (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor is the University of Notre Dame's London campus. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody know if the New College of the Humanities is listed? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • New College of the Humanities is simply a private tuition company, students there study, and are registered for, London External degrees. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As for Notre Dame, I think that the difference is that it is a well-recognized, academically rigorous, university. Westminster seminary, which sacks faculty if they dare to suggest that humans may have had a hand in writing the bible, isn't. Oh, and Notre Dame's London site is just somewhere to go in London as part of a degree taken in America (or at least that's what the Notre Dame London website says). DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Redaction was unreasonable. A statement to the effect that "I don't think people that study imaginary things should be afforded the same respect as people that study actual things" isn't an attack within any ordinary definition. Rarely a day goes by that I don't encounter someone saying how much better the world would be if more people found God, which, by this reasoning, would be an attack on atheists.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • See, that's not quite right. It would be a like situation if you encountered people opposing DYKs (or !voting delete in AfDs) on the grounds that the subject is an atheist. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "It'd be nice if you believed this wasn't imaginary" = not an attack. "What you believe in is imaginary" = an attack. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • How is anybody honestly expressing its opinion that "What you believe in is imaginary" an attack? I believe that precisely for all religions alike. Am I attacking all of religious editors in WP right now? Regards. Gaba 10:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It was an unsuitable reason for the DYK hook not to be published, but Barney's remarks were not a personal attack, and should not be redacted. (For what it's worth: I am a qualified theologian, and a practising Christian. But if I'm honest, most if not all academic theology is either stuff that someone has made up, or opinions about that, or opinions about those opinions, and so on. That doesn't mean it's not a real field of study, and it has absolutely no impact on whether or not God 'really' exists. It's perfectly fair comment. Philosophy is mostly imaginary too.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "qualified theologian" but I got the impression from your userboxes that you had a degree in mathematics and were interested in programming but were a member of a church. I went to a seminary, had coursework in systematic theology, feminist theology, ethics and liturgy, and I disagree that "most if not all academic theology is either stuff that someone has made up, or opinions about that, or opinions about those opinions". I'm surprised that, as a theologian, you would describe the field in this way. Liz 12:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My main degree is in mathematics; I also have an associate's degree in theology. And my point, such as it is, was that 'stuff that someone made up' is a pretty broad field. Almost any area of study except for physical sciences can be criticised for a lack of rigour. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as someone with a degree in Economics and Sociology (along with Religion), I'd disagree that these areas lack rigour. But that's a conversation for some other time. Liz 16:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, just because TParis put "NPA" in his edit summary when redacting the edit does not mean the sole basis upon which we evaluate the propriety of the redaction is WP:RPA. The fact is, TParis had a rational basis for redacting the comment, and that is ArbCom's principle in the Manning case, which interpreted community rules (applying the Foundation Policy) as finding that comments that demean other editors or article subjects on the basis of religion are offensive, damage the editing environment for everyone, and can be grounds for sanctions. Misplaced Pages is not a moot court, nor a bureaucracy: it is highly unusual for us to apply the kind of strict scrutiny review of editor conduct that is being proposed here (which is what this was since no admin powers were involved). Removal of comments that are uncivil or otherwise disrupt the editing environment (in the sense of the Manning principle) is not at all unreasonable or illegitimate. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

People are confusing tolerance of other people's religions with respect for people's religions. Tolerance is important: everyone should be able to get a job, eat, vote, etc. even if they have religious beliefs and no matter what those beliefs are. Mandating respect for those religious beliefs is unreasonable.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no way Misplaced Pages can mandate to anyone how they should feel or think about anything because that is not possible and not desired. Policies and guidelines govern behavior, not thoughts. So, you're right, you can't mandate that an editor respect a religion but you can mandate that they not voice their disrespect for another person's religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, ethnicity and so on. Fourth pillar and all. Liz 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to mandate that we not disrespect belief systems, either. It's quite reasonable for me to state that transubstantiation should not be presented as fact. It's even reasonable for me to reject the findings of someone that purports to scientifically study the metabolic processes involved in the digestion of wine and bread if that person loudly proclaims a literal belief in transubstantiation. I would even be justified in blocking such a person from making strange claims in articles about bread and wine. Making an attack requires a level of specificity and hurtful motivation not found in the original comments.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying something shouldn't be presented as fact and saying that an article doesn't belong at DYK because the subject worships a false god. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still not an attack. Various fields of study deserve different levels of respect: most of us think of someone with a degree in physics as being worthy of a different level of respect from someone with a degree in home economics, for example. Some may find theology to be a degree worthy of consideration, others do not. Those of us that do not tend to find the study insignificant for much the same reason as was stated.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony. TParis' defense of his action: "*I maintain that the WMF Non-discrimination policy prohibits the discrimination of editors based on their religion - which includes their contributions to DYK. Barney's comments were that a DYK shouldn't be run because of religion. That's discrimination. This isn't optional.--v/r - TP 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)"

In reality, only one editor here has been discriminated based on his religion, and that is Barney, whose expression of his beliefs has been redacted by TParis. Now, one could argue that Barney discriminated against a subject because of religion, but that is something completely different than discriminating against an editor. The only one that has done this, and thus knowingly violated the non-optional WMF non-discriminatory policy, is TParis himself. Fram (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah, the action was not because of Barney's religion, but his conduct towards an other editor. This argument is about as sensible as saying it'd be unfairly discriminatory against Scientologists to punish one who harms a Suppressive Person. Barney's belief didn't compel him to discriminate against another's belief, and even if it did, that would not be held to be a protected religious act. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did he comment on the other editor though? His comment was about the subject of the article, not about the editor. He beliefs that God doesn't exist, and that therefor theology can not be taken very seriously (simplified his comment somewhat, I know). This was removed by TParis because we aren't allowed to discriminate against other editors on religious grounds. Barney's comment was nothing of the kind. Removing Barney's comment was censoring of a religious point of view of an editor though, not of an article subject, so TParis did the one thing he claimed isn't allowed. Fram (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See the Manning principle: comments that demean the subject of an article on the basis of a protected personal trait, which includes religion, are per se harmful to the community. See also my comment above re: strict scrutiny, which is being applied without reason here. TParis's redaction had a rational basis in policy. Just because he said "NPA" in his edit summary does not mean we damn his redaction and restore the comment regardless of whether it creates a harmful editing environment. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to have to backpedal a little and think about this. I just realized I've been arguing that we should be applying a rather strict standard of reviewing the propriety/meaning of Barney's comment, but that we should apply a lenient standard of reviewing the propriety of TParis's removal. That actually seems pretty inconsistent. So... if we apply a lenient standard, Barney's oppose may have a rational basis and would probably be proper (but does his comment still demean the article subject within the meaning of the Manning principle?)—if so, TParis's redaction would not be proper. But if we apply a strict standard, and Barney's oppose was improper, then TParis's NPA removal would be incorrect as well. Yeah, gotta think about this. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The redaction looks like censorship to me, and I would worry quite a bit if we applied such a strict standard in interpreting the Manning principle - this may open up a can of worms. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The take-away I'm trying to get across is that Misplaced Pages processes need to remain neutral as to beliefs, and should affirmatively disallow !votes based on such criteria in order to maintain that neutrality. They should also be affirmatively disallowed given such !votes are highly likely to cause disruption. (again, see the Manning Equality and respect principle and the ease with which the key portions to this dispute were adopted). Whether Barney's !vote should be interpreted so strictly... I'm no longer as sure as I was before. I'm still thinking. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, compleatly inapproprate redaction, removal of opinion from a place that is intentded for opinion is ludicrous and a violation of WP:NOTCENSOREDCombatWombat42 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. This ridiculous nonsense is clearly purposeful potstirring and a big WP:POINT violation. The "objection" is based on bigotry, does not stand up to scrutiny, is unsupported by the facts, and should be dismissed out of hand. DYK is supposed to be a means to encourage editors to produce and improve quality articles, it is not a free speech forum for people to air their grievances about the topic of particular articles. Employed properly, DYK is one of the best ways we have to encourage and cultivate new editors. What better way to alienate them than to make it a shooting gallery! I really don't want to encourage the contingent determined to make this a matter of free speech martyrdom, and CombatWombat42 is productively discussing potential hooks, so I'm not going to remove CW's comment there, but really people? Do you think a DYK discussion is the appropriate forum to make a point about censorship or atheism? Go support Banned Books Week or listen to a Dawkins lecture, but keep it out of DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not bigoted to say that getting a degree from a minor institution which requires absolute and unquestioning acceptance of the Westminster Confession is not worth a DYK, and it is not bigoted to state a belief that god is imaginary. I am seeing some bigotry hereabouts, but not in the redacted comment. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what was said, however. What was advocated was the dismissal of an entire field of study from consideration at DYK because of a personal belief. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What was said was just a succinct way of saying what I just said. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not bigoted to state you think God is imaginary. Those beliefs are entirely irrelevant to DYK and notability discussions, and an argument that we should make the rules here based on those beliefs is one based on bigotry, however. Or maybe we can strike bigotry, we can call it bias or POV or whatever. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Soooo.... it's biased to say that theology lacks the rigour (owing to the imaginary nature of the subject) to make it suitable for a DYK hook, but not biased to say that it is suitable for DYK? DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Any field that has been traditionally recognized by academia and accrediting bodies as a valid one is perfectly suitable for DYK. To exclude one of those fields because of personal beliefs is bias. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a horse in this race? DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am a supporter of DYK, a believer in its value to the project, and an advocate of removing irrelevant POINTy comments and encouraging new editors and protecting them from trollish behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) And a significant contributor to the article in question? DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed it for DYK after this matter was brought here to ANI and made a number of cosmetic edits, but no contributions or text of any significance. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's been mentioned here already in the past week, but could admins please keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc de BinaryMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary as the end of the discussion nears? There is all sorts going on there; CoI editing, multiple SPAs, lots of quacking like sockpuppets, editors making multiple !votes, editors making changes to other editors' !votes... GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary. The other AfD was closed last year. What a mess though. Number 57 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the correction. Fixed above. GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The previous AFD discussion should be listed on that AFD page, if they are indeed about the same article the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. The last discussion was WP:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary from January 2013, when Banc de Binary was spelled with lowercase 'de'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got to laugh when the SPAs from the actual company itself are !voting to delete the article. They put it up and then found out that the article can't exist as a whitewash, but must accurately represent the (dodgy) history of the company. Unlucky. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean un LUC ky? ;) -- Atama頭 22:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an advertisement in the last few days on Freelancer asking for help deleting an article - I wasn't sure if it was this one, but I wouldn't be surprised. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Heh... this article was originally created by Wiki-PR. It's a really great example of why it's a bad idea to pay for an article to be created about your company. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Closed it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can another experienced editor or administrator please explain to John Pack Lambert that he shouldn't "attack" anybody, whether they're on Misplaced Pages or not, and whether they have a personal history with the person or not. This edit was in response to an earlier warning, so maybe if he hears it from someone else he'll take it more seriously. Maybe if he can be shown the value of showing just basic general respect now, he can avoid hurting himself or the project later. Nothing is to be gained by bad-mouthing an off-Misplaced Pages person here, regardless of how deep-seated his personal feelings are. I also don't think bringing her family into it elevates the discussion in any way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He might even learn how to spell "privileged" in the process. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. NE Ent 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Filipacci was rude, inconsiderate, and was the main force behind a movement that engaged in personal insults on me, attempts to attack me for my religion, clear and unquestioned attacks on me as sexist, and unjustified attacks on people for attempts to follow a specific policy. She has never apologized for her rudeness, and as a public figure who has shown me disrespect, and whose actions are still used to try and justify attacks on any statement I make, I see no reason to back down. No one has ever apologized for the unjustified, unkind and down right mean-spiritedness of the attacks on me that were lobbed a year ago. I get brought here, when it was Filipacci who instead of discussing her views in a proper forum, engaged in biased attacks on a very public forum. That was the ultimate in not bringing the issue up personally. I am not the only person who has mocked Filipacci for using her privalges and connections, and I see no reason to back down from it, at all. Why do we have to bow down to the will and desire of such pampered, privaleged people? Why am I the one who has Jimbo Wales make an uneducated and uninformed call for me to be excluded from wikipedia? I have spent lots of time and effort trying to improve the project, and I have to show for it is rudeness. All I get out of it is people over and over attacking me. Some on multiple occasions in what clearly shows deep seated animus. I am not backing down here. I was clearly defamed, and many people on[REDACTED] were fully ready to throw me under the bus to protect themselves. I am sick and tired of privileged people who go around trying to claim there is some sort of discrimination against them. It is rubbish, and I am tired of having their views not be challenged. No one has ever apologized for attacking me, and I am mad about that. I have been among the few who have tried to work on systematic corrections to the issues that Filipacci brought up, and for doing so I get attacked by people who hold a view that not having gender-specific categories is sexist. I am not going to back down from mocking some people. Not while others have not backed down from their attacks on me, and in fact were never properly called on their attacks on me. The fact that people went and hunted down an off-wiki statement I made, and then took it out of context to attack me is very, very objectionable. And none of them were ever called on that. I on the other hand have only ever mocked Filipacci for published statements she made with the intent to disrupt and undermine the normal working of wikipedia. When a person makes a public statement with those intents, and disrupts the normal workings of[REDACTED] in so doing, I see no reason that we should show them respect. We normally call that canvassing for votes, and condemn it. That is clearly what Filipacci did, she failed to explain the issues properly, wrote in a biased way, and messed up internal results. I see no reason to mock her for her canvassing, especially since because of it people still engage in personal attacks on me. No one has apologized for the attacks on me, and I am tired of double-standards that allow such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban. The user condemns himself up above. I can't imagine anything anyone could say here that's worse than his own words. John, this is why attorneys recommend you remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, how did this entire argument start? I'm not seeing anything in John's contribs from the past month. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it related to this? Since this is John's last edit on the page, about a year ago, I have difficulty believing that the argument has lasted this long. What happened recently that prompted this thread? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• It started with this exchange back on April 17th "Upmerge Although, it is proof of how self-centured Filipacci is that she hasn't gotten her dad to let her write a scathing expose in the NYT about this problem that Obi-wan has identified for us. She only cares about Misplaced Pages categorization when it affects her. Alternately we could try splitting by century, but I'm not feeling up to that project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You should consider striking this direct personal attack against Amanda Filipacchi. And you certainly shouldn't be demanding another NYT article as proof that someone "cares". This is an embarrassment.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" Evidently I am supposed to show defernce to Amanda Filipacci. What I would like is for someone to apologize for the unfounded attacks on me as sexist. No one ever has. They were mean spirited and just plain wrong, and Filipacci brought them about through her yellow journalism, and it is a sad reflection on[REDACTED] that so many of its editors joined in the attacks instead of looking for the real truth. Many people on[REDACTED] have exactly the mindset of lynchmob members. They attack without learning what is really going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can't demand an apology from anyone else". That's the civility policy, John. Now, stop talking and posting about Filipacci. Get over it, and move on with your life. This comment appears to support an indefinite block for threats and personal attacks on a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you expressed any apology for the fact I have been unjustifiably accused of being a sexist, I might be willing to give you some listening. However you are just demanding I sit back and take accusations of being a sexist from people who have never really considered what I feel, believe or do. That is very hard. You have not had your one mention on national media be accusations of being a sexist. You have not had Jimbo Wales call for you to be banned from[REDACTED] just because he cares more about image than the sharing of knowledge. You have not been threatened with being a sacrificial lamb to advance some undefined agenda that conflicts with the stated ones of wikipedia. I do not get any sense that you care one iota about what I have been through.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

John, you are referring to something that happened a year ago. Yes, I understand that you think you were treated unfairly. Well, welcome to the club. I'm sure you aren't alone. Everyone thinks they have been treated unfairly before. Can you move on now, or will you be obsessing about this for another year? John Pack Lambert is not the only person in the world who thinks they have been treated unfairly. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have not made a threat to anyone. No one has explained why I need to show deference to Amanda Filipacci, but she can ignite a whole storm of attack on me. The very fact that "threats" were mentioned in the above talk is another example of uncivil language directed at me, and an attempt to limit me comments on what was a very unthoughtout and illinformed essay. Anyway, as long as other people can use the Filipacci episode to try and attack my right to comment on anything, which was about three months ago, getting on my case for coming back with biting criticism of her mean-spirited articles seems to be reasonable. No one has ever claimed that she was anything other than mean-spirited and uninformed in what she wrote. The fact that I got called sexist and worse by editors of[REDACTED] is also very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm probably overreacting, but I have to say that if people believe that[REDACTED] should be a place of civility, insulting them for misspelling a word, and the general tone of most of the comments above are the antithesis of civility. This is a classic example of using very uncivil and rude approaches to try to force someone else to be civil. This is a double standard at best. People can be rude and cutting towards me, but if I say anything rude or cutting about anyone else I will be threatened. The people who have failed to assume good faith are those who have constantly acted like me attempts to remove the problem of splitting people off into only gender-specific subcategories are being motivated by animus. Actually, though, if people really want to call for an end to uncivil discourse, they need to propose an end to the use of the term "ghetoization" in the discussion of categories. Those of us who have spent time teaching in Detroit Public Schools can not see that as other than an overhyped term with no meaning in this discussion, and those of us who have spent large amounts of time studying the Holocaust question the use of Ghetto in any modern context. As long as "ghetoization" is a term thrown around so lightly, and used to accuse others, I find any claims that anything else is uncivil suspect at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • John - you are welcome to initiate any kind of counter offensive you choose to combat what you believe is an attack on you. You just can't do it on Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What if the attacks happen on wikipedia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • You report it here and let the other person get blocked. If what you believe are attacks are supported by third party sources, you go after the sources off-Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • A small point, TP, but you might want to clarify that you meant "go after the sources off-Misplaced Pages" in legal or generally moral ways. I don't seriously think you would counsel off-wiki attacks or seriously counsel "any kind of counter offensive". I see what you were getting at but I also hope you see how it could look to someone who isn't familiar with you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I think it would take a special person to think I mean violent attacks. However, for clarity...^^^ what he said.--v/r - TP 01:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • That's cool. I just didn't want you to be the admin accused of telling someone to cause trouble for somebody in real life instead of just saying the much cleaner, "Don't cause trouble here".__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a talk page comment warrants a topic ban, especially when it extends to just a single person. I'm sorry, John, that people jumped the gun last spring and attacked you, personally, about an issue of categorization that should have been a policy discussion. I think if you are waiting for an apology for rash statements made a year ago, you will be waiting a long time. Editors' tempers got the best of them, they probably regret their words now but they've moved on. As hurt as you might be, you have to let this resentment go, as long as you are editing Misplaced Pages. It's not good for you or the project.

You know I disagree with you on having gender-specific categories (I'm for them) but I also acknowledge that you have a ton of experience (over 200K edits!). As for ghettoization, I've seen that term used as a reason against gender-specific categories, not in support of them so I'm surprised you would bring that up.

As for Amanda Filipacci, that is last year's news and I see no reason for you to continue to bring up her name unless you are editing her article, which I would advise against. But that's just my two cents. Liz 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• The Misplaced Pages is not a personal platform to lash out at one's external critics; go start a blog for that. If this behavior cannot be self-regulated then I fully support a topic ban on all matters related to Ms. Filipacchi. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing diffs of the alleged transgressions by JPL. I certainly don't consider this adequate for significant sanctions (bans / blocks). NE Ent 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that accusing a person of gaining advantage in her career because of nepotism is a rather bright line to cross, BLP-wise. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusing a person on the BLP article or on the BLP article's talk page? I can see it the possibility of a block or a topic ban being given. Doing it on a talk page of another user should be a clear case of WP:NOTFORUM in that regard, but I don't think it is breaking any BLP policy as it was not on the person's article talk page nor in the main space. It seems to be just a rant, and I don't see why a user should should get sanctioned for that. (Even if is out of taste or uncivil) Tutelary (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Got it? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Upon talking a second look, I concur the the second portion of the comment is clearly a violation of the BLP standards and have redacted it. Which begs the question -- if the concern is BLP, why didn't the OP nor any of the folks calling for sanctions redact it? Accordingly, oppose sanctions. NE Ent 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"It's a violation, but since nobody redacted it he needs to be allowed to get away with it"? Really? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a violation. The most direct, simplest, path of least drama way of addressing is to redact it and explain why it's unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. When folks appear to be more interested in wiki-blood than peaceably resolving situations, yea, I'm going to be opposing. NE Ent 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban There are numerous reasons why this should have happened a long time ago, with NPA being the most prominent one. If the problem persists, indef block and topic ban from all women-related categories need to be on the table as well. pbp 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all women-related topics. I'm sorry, but all I see in that wall of text above is an attempt by an editor to game the system through an inaccurate and self-victimizing personal attack. --NellieBly (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with some regret. At first, I thought his edits were useful, but after seeing what happened here, I found some issues there. Violations of the WP:NPA and WP:BLP policies while editing the Filipacci article have, I think, sufficiently demonstrated that this individual is incapable of editing in this topic area, if he can't edit in a more civilized manner. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to Oppose per reasonings by Liz and Elaqueate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This edit, together with those that have followed, is inexcusable – a cheap, unprovoked gibe against an off-wiki personality, in a context that wasn't even related to her in any way, and with no relation or relevance to the discussion during which it was made. Definitely a BLP violation. I'll put it plainly: I will enforce this with blocks, starting right now. John Pack Lambert: one more posting about Filipacchi, here or anywhere else on WP, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question where does it say what the topic is that he will be banned from if this goes through? Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Nowhere clearly. Viriditas early on seems to be proposing a ban from Angela Filipacchi-related content, and Tarc supported a ban of that type. Liz then opposes a ban, implicity I think a ban regarding Angela Filipacchi. NellieBly then supports a ban on all woman-related topics. (Personally, I have trouble understanding what that would mean. Any article about a human being is presumably "woman-related," as most humans have moms, which would make all articles relating to humanity "woman-related". Many elements and astronomical objects named after females would presumably qualify as well.) And, unfortunately, although I think I'm right about the nature of the ban Viriditas was thinking of, I don't see any clear statement to that effect, and that calls into at least some degree of question exactly which proposed ban the other support votes are supporting. I think that's right, anyway. If someone wanted to start separate threads/subsections regarding both the AF and woman-related proposed bans, that would probably help a lot. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• oppose topic ban, especially since the topic has not been elaborated clearly enough - is it women? women's categories? Filipacchi? Women novelists? Categorization? I agree with NE Ent above, there seems to be a desire to punish here, rather than the much simpler solution which is to redact any offensive comments, issue a warning to JPL and move on. JPL would be wise to voluntarily recuse himself from edits to Filipacchi's article going forward in any case, given the two had a rather public spat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we're past warnings. It's been established for months that the community disapproves of JPL's actions on this topic. We're also forgetting that JPL has repeatedly engaged in edit wars over women's topics. pbp 15:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a wonderful vague wave of the hand, and further evidence that this has become a witch hunt, with people piling on saying "Burn him", "Topic ban him" (From what?) "Whatever?? We want blood!" Many people have edit warred over many things, but they don't get topic-banned from vast areas like "women". You've just made your argument even more ridiculous than it was previously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you provide evidence of this alleged activity, then we can evaluate it. Right now we're just looking at a couple of exasperated comments. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, at least tentatively, until we have a better idea what topic he is supposed to be banned from, as per Obi-wan above. I might well however support a ban if the scope of the ban were more clearly defined. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per John Carter. It is a stretch to claim since JPL made an inappropriate remark about Filipacchi that he should receive a topic ban against all women-related articles and categories. It has to be shown that there currently exists a problem with JPL's editing on women topics beyond personal comments he made here against an individual. There seems to be some lingering bad feelings about the dispute last spring but if there aren't some diffs showing a current problem in this area (beyond these Filipacchi comments), a sweeping topic ban on women's articles and categories is unwarranted. Liz 16:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggested topic ban seems unnecessary at this point and should be narrow if instituted. Deli nk (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Liz and because it doesn't meet the 'least neccessary' rule of Misplaced Pages:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. That said, continuing the dispute on the project is disruptive. This dispute needs to be handled off-wiki. If that requires a block at some point to facilitate moving this off-wiki, then so be it. I'd hate to lose a valued contributor that way but what's inappropriate is inappropriate. The most favorable outcome here is that JPL realizes that we're not requiring that he 'take abuse and keep quiet', we're requiring that he use other-than-Misplaced Pages means of dealing with it.--v/r - TP 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we told him not to do this on-wiki months ago, and he's doing it on-wiki again. If months ago is to be any indication, this won't stop him from taking it up again sooner or later. There needs to be a block or topic ban or something that shows we really mean "get the dispute of this project" pbp 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PBP, you clearly have a hankering to punish JPL in _some_ way. For example, last year, you called for a topic ban, and were trouted after the result closed very poorly and not in your favor. And here you are, dragging out the same old stories. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#Topic_ban_Johnpacklambert_from_CfD.3F. I think the first thing that should happen is you should stop contributing to this thread, lest someone proposes an interaction ban for you on all topics related to JohnPackLambert for your edits, since you are clearly unable to do so in a neutral fashion. Not to mention this RFC which you filed against him a few months earlier: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert. Another admin put it best, when he said "this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are also a non-neutral party, Obiwan, just in the other direction. JPL exhibits behaviors that trouble me, and those behaviors will not be inhibited by an interaction ban. Since an interaction ban with me will not stop him from attacking Amanda Filipacchi (someone whom I have nothing to do with), it's pointless to propose one as it doesn't solve the issue at hand. Please focus on rectifying JPL's behavior rather than levying complaints at me. pbp 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And while you're at it, don't mention year-old decisions on topic bans that are completely different in scope from this one. Even if they were the same proposal, consensus can change. pbp 19:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, while reiterating what others have said and noting that could easily turn into Support if this continues. It sucks to be attacked, and it's even worse when someone has a bigger soapbox than you. But all we can do is control what happens on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages should not be anybody's soapbox, whether it be John Pack Lambert or Amanda Filipacchi. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the Ent's quite sensible comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Despite the fact that the user has shown no indication he has retracted any earlier personal attacks in any way (indeed, he has only bizarrely insisted he has some right to not be called out for making personal attacks because his behavior is not uncivil when compared to the Holocaust. Yikes), and despite their stated belief that he would be somehow karmically justified in repeating the same sort of comment in the future, I think it would be all around better if the editor just voluntarily refrained from talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Topic bans are to prevent further disruption; I think this user can now see what would generally be considered a troublesome comment, even if he still feels strongly entitled to make it. Just because he's said he's right to make those comments doesn't mean he'll necessarily make them in the future, especially after being warned by so many here. As long as there's now a good chance that he'll refrain on his own accord from direct personal attacks in the future, there's a good chance there's no need to make it formal.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Most simply, a community sponsored topic ban is basically moot when multiple admins have warned the user that he was in violation and that he really shouldn't do it again. There's no disagreement about whether he's been warned and advised at this point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You show a total lack of understanding of what I said above. I never made a comparison of what I said to the Holocaust. The people who brought the Holocaust into this potential discussion were those who chose to use "Ghetoization" as the term for splitting articles into categories limited to gender. My point above is that in light of the Holocaust among other places where Ghetoes were horrible places intent on killing people, Ghetoization is a horribly inflamatory term, that is needlessly divisive and causes way too much consternation when applied to the issue of what categories a person is put in. The above is the type of unjustified attacks which totally misrepresent what I actually said that got this whole thing started.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Speculating there's a good chance he'll refrain from attacks seems a wrong approach. Has such a commitment actually been made? As for BLP, isn't that concerned with defamation? Personal attacks and defamation are't the same. I don't see any BLP violations, as I understand the rule. 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Howunusual (talk)

• Oppose per Obiwankenobi & Liz - No one knows what he's proposed to be topic banned on , And I'm not seeing any diffs from OP in regards to his behaviour .... Just simply give a warning & move on. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment PbH has engaged in vindictive attacks on me dating back to December 2012. The fact that he has tried to turn this into a broad topic ban is part of a general behavior on his part to intrude into all discussions related to me, and the excalate the material under discussion. I am not the only person who he has pursued in a vindictive manner. I would suggest that we need to turn this around, and do a through and complete consideration of reprimanding him for his persistent violations of civility in his multiple attacks on me. One place where this was definately present was in discussions of Category:American people of African-American descent. At one point we were told to tone down our discussions and avoid talking to each other. I have followed that reccomendation. He in general has not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There has never been an interaction ban, and there will not be as a result of this discussion, as the interaction ban won't solve the problem of you continually attacking Amanda Filipacci. I am not the first nor the only person to call for a topic ban for you in this area, so it is wholly inaccurate to lay it at my feet. Furthermore, the things you call personal attacks...weren't personal attacks. If they were, your responses to other people in this thread would also be personal attacks :-D . pbp 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have in no way tried to edit the Amanda Filipacci article at all. My last edits to it were in topic issues, not in categorization. To confuse a statement in a discussion of categorization with actions in editing an article, and to pretend that one can illuminate actions in the other is very narrow minded. On the other hand, until another editor claims to have been attacked in a national publication for their editing on[REDACTED] and held up to scorn over such, any claim to have any feeling of understanding with what I have gone through will ring false. Unless some others here have been accused of being sexist personally and specifically in a broad array of forums, you do not understand how hurtful what I was put through was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This whole thing seems to have blown up over one comment. The reactions seem to be based on the view I have done this repeatedly. I have said I will not repeat this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I admit I was wrong. I should not have spoken so rudely about other people. I should be less defensive. I'm sorry and I will try to avoid personal attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-star/Dragonron back

In the past hour or so, I've had two edits of mine blindly reverted by 166.205.55.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see and ). The IP made very few edits prior, and I remembered that this blind reverting was the MO of Wiki-star a.k.a. Dragonron from earlier this year. In January, Mark Arsten blocked 166.205.48.0/20, a range previously abused by Wiki-star in his childish dispute with me (documented here), and because Mark is on WikiBreak, I would like to request that someone put the kibosh on this debacle before it goes on further...again. Also, it might be pertinent to do a checkuser to see if he's going to be transparently "hiding" again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This section was removed from this page by 74.2.195.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP also performed two other blind reverts ( and ), painting him as an obvious sockpuppet of at least the IP blocked yesterday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One more. --NeilN 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and he registered Ryudonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also been editing under 166.147.110.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Case has been attempting to help me with this, as I notified him of the range 166.205.48.0/20 previously blocked in January by Mark Arsten (who is on WikiBreak) when he was assisting me with this harassment. These two new IPs belong on the range 166.147.96.0/19 which happens to have been previously checkuserblocked. This guy has been harassing people here for 8 years nonstop. Can we keep him from blindly reverting my edits for a few more months?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Torgownik at Russell Targ

Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as the subject of the article Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite several warnings and patient explanations, he continues to make contentious and inappropriate edits to the article (e.g. , , ), rather than requesting changes on the Talk page or from one of the supportive editors who are active both there and on his user talk page.

I don't want to see him banned, not least because that would feed https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152195637913218&id=295503008217&comment_id=10152195729103218&offset=0&total_comments=1 his conspiracy theories about Misplaced Pages], but it's hard to know what do do when he refuses to accept that continuing to make these changes is inappropriate, not least for his own reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not added anything controversial to my bio page for several days. I have been peacefully and very extensively answering questions for a wiki editor (Wnt), on the Warning page. I changed my start date at Lockheed from 1986, to the correct date 1985. But that doesn't sick. The editors strongly prefer the incorrect date. I will let it go. I added Helena Blavatsky to my father's publishing. People seem to think that's OK. I do not know what this current fuss is about. I have surrendered to overwhelming force, since you are obviously free to write anything you wish. Torgownik (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Torgownik (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

• Targ is not the aggressor here. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Russell_Targ#Targ.27s_personal_commentary_being_cited_in_the_lead in which Goblin Face announces that "I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Misplaced Pages being put in the lead . The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Misplaced Pages but it also contains a deliberate lie." The "comment" is simply that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Apparently Misplaced Pages rules not merely insist that he be branded a pseudoscience, not only rule out citation of any source disputing that point of view, but rule out even mention that he himself could possibly object to this self-evident enlightened point of view. And we still don't have that in, right now, because it's been repeatedly reverted. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's my response to this. These are all Targ's comments, you can judge if what he has been saying is ok or not:

• "Bobby Fisher and "laser pioneer" had been in my bio for at least a year before the Wiki trolls got interested me and my bio. It is indisputable that you are all snipping away at my life because you can't stand that there is world-wide interest in remote viewing. Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement."

• "It looks to me as though you are very good at reading the skeptical literature, but not so interested in the scientific papers you are trashing. I had to wait until my ninth book to say we had "A physicist's proof for psychic abilities" because now the data are overwhelming. If you can't see that, it's because you haven't looked at the data. It's more fun to throw rocks and break windows."

• "If you Misplaced Pages editors have any tiny spark of integrity, you should include the following... I will be looking for some part of this to appear on the bio page. If not, I will just addume that you have no interest at all in presenting the truth."

• The Misplaced Pages trolls who are trashing my bio site have only 100% negative things to say about the very existence of remote viewing. I think that is pretty crazy. What alternate universe are they living in?

It is my opinion that Targ is abusive and just on Misplaced Pages to cause trouble, he's been temporarily blocked twice already for edit-warring, deleting references from his article, (sock puppeting on an IP), meat puppetry etc. Off Misplaced Pages he is writing falsehoods about it , . I don't see why Targ is still on Misplaced Pages. I'm not editing his article for a while, I have taken a break from it. So whatever. This really doesn't interest me. Got other stuff to do. Goblin Face (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

#1: The critics had somehow convinced themselves that his wife being the sister of Bobby Fischer was unacceptable trivia that should be taken out. I managed to get them to accept it by citing a news story in which he helped Fischer, but they still are of the opinion that it is necessary to include that his father published "Chariots of the Gods", but not that he published "The Godfather", even though the latter was Putnam's big blockbuster.

#3: The article cited a single report by American Institutes of Research, which encompassed a blue ribbon panel, one pro and one anti remote viewing, overseen by three other reviewers. The line on the article was that the anti in the report was a reliable source to cite, but the pro- in the same report was a fringe source that couldn't be quoted. I tried to deal with this by citing major conclusions from the combined group that pretty much said what they both have said. However, even so... it's a 1995 report about an organization Targ left in 1982 that is felt to be a judgment on Targ's work and can't be delegated to Remote viewing.

Now to be sure, Targ has been moderately irate at points with how Misplaced Pages has dealt with him, but by no means excessively so given the situation. Misplaced Pages has a very strong BLP policy for celebrities who want their histories in porn movies to go away and so forth. I don't agree when people do that, but I believe in just being plain fair and letting people hear what Targ thinks, hear what the people doing paranormal research think, setting down all the opinions side by side and letting the best man win. But when the skeptics get organized and aggressive, biography articles turn into a gauntlet of insults with no room for neutral description. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also consistently assumed bad faith, in relentless violation of Hanlon's Razor if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to let people hear what Targ thinks, as for the subject of any bio, is not by letting him edit his own article. Perhaps a case can be made for the insertion of the WSJ quote, but he is not the one to insert it. Personally, I think it belongs in the article, but as a claim, not as the statement of fact inserted at this edit . I see this as an example of when a subject of an article has a reasonable complaint that material should be added, but still should not be adding it themselves because of the POV of the addition. BTW, I am rather doubtful of using the fact that his father published books on the occult, unless his father was particularly known for doing so, or that his father's bookstore had these works, again, unless it was exclusively or predominantly devoted to it. Every general bookstore has such works. and most general publishers have published them from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely right. So how do we stop him doing this, ideally without blocking him. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask article subjects not to edit an article to preserve a neutral article, though they can still intervene to deal with vandalism. However, if an article reads like a hatchet job and neutrality isn't being preserved, then we can't blame the subject for diving in. So the shortest route to that destination is to deal with the problems he and others have pointed out. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COIADVICE is intended to be advice for an editor with a COI to follow to avoid running into conflicts. However, when the editor is the article subject sometimes what they think would "unambiguously violate" our BLP policy may just be something that the article subject doesn't agree with. I'd suggest that 1, 3, and 4 would be acceptable behavior in this situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:, if the article were a peerless example of polished Misplaced Pages perfection, Torgownik would still consider it grossly insulting. The problem is that he passionately believes in a body of work that is not just rejected by the scientific community, but ridiculed and considered a case-study in exactly how not to do science properly. I feel very sorry for him, but this genuinely is not our problem to fix, and the changes he makes are well outside of what could be supported by even the most charitable interpretation of the rules. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• In Guy's 3 diffs I see #1) a slightly heated rant about the article inserted into the article itself, which is wrong there but would have been fine on the talkpage. Per AGF and BITE, I think this was just an editing mistake and Russell Targ should just be informed that discussion about the article should go onto the talkpage instead of the article page. #2 is the insertion of the WSJ citation about silver prediction. Yes that's a COI edit and could be phrased more neutrally, actually on second look, it really wasn't too bad as written and if you insist on reverting Targ's adding it on COI grounds, then ok--but I'd support another editor rewriting and reinserting it since it's relevant and sourcing is fine (the WSJ article itself is online and it takes a factual and suitably skeptical though diplomatic tone towards the psychic experiment). #3 fixes the Lockheed date (uncontentious so I'd tend to take Targ's word for it) and makes a few other minor additions that strictly speaking have COI/promotion issues, but those issues are fairly minor on the scale of such things. I do think the mention of Bobby Fischer should be left in the article as a gloss on the existing hyperlink to Mrs. Targ's biography page. The talk page is kind of noisy but if people can dial back their bureaucratic impulses a bit and Mr. Targ is willing to limit his participation to the talk page rather than the article, I don't think intervention is needed at the moment. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF would work if he had been here a day or a week. He's been here longer than that, and his advocacy has been extremely forceful. Those are not the only problematic edits to the article made by him. As I say, he keeps doing this even after being told multiple times that he should not. The problem is not the specific edits themselves, it's the fact that he refuses to accept that he should not be making these POV edits to his own article for numerous good reasons. Part of the problem is that a few people sympathetic to his POV are egging him on and contributing to an impression that adding POV content to your own biography is fine by some people and that objections are about the subject matter rather than about policy and the consensus that biography subjects should not add contentious content. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that according to the article Targ is legally blind. I've seen a couple of other misplaced edits, and I'm sure they are not merely accidental but excusable in the sense that they don't mean he's ignorant of where to put the edit. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know this. It might explain one r two of the edits, but most are clearly content edits. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats on user talk

Using STiki I restored content (15:47, 18 May 2014) that had been removed (15:40, 18 May 2014) with the edit summary, "The text online was written by people who did not know the facts and the references to Davy O'List is Slander and Deformation." and included deleting references and content with citations. There followed two unsigned posts (from IP: 80.0.21.1) to my talk page 15:59, 20 May 2014 and 16:03, 20 May 2014 which contain legal threats (but not a link to indicate what the poster is even talking about). NLT warning given 22:07, 20 May 2014 and 23:40, 20 May 2014. This IP is apparently claiming to be David O'List, odd as there is a registered account User:Davy O'List. Doesn't much matter to me, but the legal threats are inapropriate and display a poor understanding of how WP works. Another editor has done some work on the article I believe the op was referring to, The Nice, and has toned down and balanced the content which may have been an issue for the op. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, those are clear legal threats. Blockable per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an uptick on these claims that one reference or another is engaging in defamation and that using said sources would expose WikiMedia to a lawsuit. Perhaps these individuals should be pointed to a recent case where an Appellate Court threw out such and argument. "No liability for linking to — and praising — allegedly defamatory article" —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute that triggered this legal threat, by the way, seems to be under discussion at WP:BLPN#The Nice. 80.0.21.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been blocked, but has also not edited since the legal threat was made. User:Davy O'List, who may be associated with the IP has not edited since April. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The claims about personality rights are irrelevant, since Misplaced Pages (or the WMF) are not profiting from the use of the person's "image". That said, there is a book about the band. A member of the band doesn't like it, fine. I assume that's common. Let's get in some counter claims in, even primary. Let's word the material differently, give it less weight, etc. But so far I see no discussion with them at all. §FreeRangeFrog 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine and all, absolutely. But to my understanding NLT doesn't give the credibility of the threat's grounds much consideration (and the threat was against not only Misplaced Pages but also MrBill3). While I usually advocate the stance that NLT doesn't cover a lot of situations it's often invoked to cover (though I believe WP:CIVILITY covers most of those others), I don't see how the IP's post to MrBill3's user talk can be interpreted as anything other than "I will sue". Here's the relevant language: "This article damages day by day and you are responsible for putting it back up. By law you need my consent to use my name, image and likeness but you don't have it. . . . I confirm Misplaced Pages and the contributors to this article do not have my consent to use my name. Wikepedia are not in the position to hold a trial online. Everyday this article appears on line becomes a separate charge." (emphasis and ellipses mine) I get that we shouldn't overlook legal threats, and that situations like these can sometimes be diffused with tact, but NLT is a bright-line rule. Or am I misunderstanding this situation? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we're also seeing more legal threats saying that using a logo on an article about a company requires prior permission. Or is that nothing new? Liz 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a legal threat, it is. I'm just saying that's what people do when they feel frustrated that we only template them instead of trying to communicate and explain stuff to them. @Liz: Yeah, it's not uncommon for companies to write to OTRS claiming we are violating their copyrights by using their logos. They usually go away after we explain Fair use to them. §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess is it's a litigation tactic to create irrefutable evidence of actual notice of infringement, so as to make a finding of willful infringement (leading to enhanced damages) more likely. It's much like why people still put copyright notices on things despite it being unnecessary for the copyright to exist: better damages. It may also have some relevance to pretrial civil procedure. There are also fads in legal practice, both professional and amateur, like many sports, that get used without an understanding of the principles behind the action. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody tell the IP he's Davy O'List, remind him that Brian May called him "the legendary guitarist of the 'Wick" and cited him as a major influence, remind him John Peel has never called him "a waste of talent and electricity" unlike his bandmate, and "America" doesn't work without his guitar solo. I've toned down the article and if I can get hold of any other half decent source of The Nice, I'll tone it down some more. Don't overlook legal threats, people. Ritchie333 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I really wonder if this editor is David O'List because I don't see similar edits on his own article, just on the band article. Maybe just someone else who was once associated with the band, a journalist or fan. It doesn't make any difference regarding the WP:NLT but I wouldn't assume it is O'List. Liz 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Davy O'List, you'll see a conversation from 2009 with Rodhullandemu where he confirmed the account was his, then a more recent complaint from April this year on exactly the same vein. I totally understand why he might complain like this - Immediate Records went bankrupt so he might well never have seen any decent royalties from his work with The Nice, one of his fans has overtaken him to become one of the biggest names in rock ever, he wants to keep going in the music business and reading unpleasant things from a quick google search isn't helping him. The quacking is so loud I need ear protectors. Ritchie333 07:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If the editor is not O'List whom is making the assertion that whose name, likeness etc. can't be used without permission and denying such permission? The point of this notice is to let editors know, legal threats have been made on my talk page. BTW I am not insisting on some particular action, whatever admins decide is fine by me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Profane edit - anybody got an eraser?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Atmosphere of Jupiter: 50.203.145.70 (talk · contribs · block log) made this edit (diff). It's not horrible, but it's not easy on the eyes, either. Can someone hide that revision (and the accompanying editsummary) from plain view as a matter of courtesy?

FYI: I haven't notified said anon, didn't seem warranted. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Connormah (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ScottXW and his "deletion heros"

A few days ago, Thomas.W reported ScotXW for maintaing a "wall of shame" on his userpage. I took no action against ScotXW at the time, but taking the view that the list was in violation of WP:POLEMIC (being "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws") I removed the list. Yesterday ScotXW restored it, claiming that it was necessary because he "want to keep track of the people whom I see as disruptive". I pointed out again that this was a textbook violation of the talkpage guideline, and removed the list a second time. ScotXW again restored it, claiming that because these users "got away with it" his list couldn't be considered a negative record. Needless to say, I find that to be sea-lawyering of the highest order... I have again removed the list, he restored it this morning. Since this is now turning into a slow edit war, and since I feel a little too involved to take administrative action, I would appreciate some input from an admin who isn't quite so involved - perhaps ScotXW can be persuaded to listen to someone else, although given his responses on his talkpage to me, Dennis Brown and Dsimic I don't know how likely that is. Yunshui _水 08:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed it, and full-protected the userpage for a month. It should draw him here to discuss the panda ₯’ 08:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Present. My problem is, that the Misplaced Pages has gathered an extremely convoluted set of rules. The way I see it, you can achieve anything, as long as you frustrate your target just enough. This is a long know problem of the Misplaced Pages. I do not see myself as a Vandal or as harming the Misplaced Pages. So, what is actually your point? What is actually the point of the rules I am breaking? Is there really consensus behind all rules? Here I am, doubting that. Cheers. User:ScotXW 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to maintain an enemy list in your userspace. Keep such lists in an off-wiki blog if you must. Doc talk 09:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Could the history of this list be removed too, please? The diff shows me the whole list. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. There's no need to revdel the list. It would have been done already if it was warranted. Doc talk 11:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder whether it is time to issue a block to ScotXW. He has already been told not to keep these lists on his userpage. After snapping at the person that told him this last time, and having been generally unprofessional with other editors on his talk page, he appears to have added the list again. Fool us five times, shame on you. Fool us six, shame on us? AGK 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is. User:ScotXW 12:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Scot, there's nothing remotely convoluted about one of the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages which is "comment on content, not contributors". Every single person who created a userid was directed to the 5 Pillars, and are all assumed to have read them. Creating a list of "contibutors I consider to be bad" is therefore contrary to that. When a number of people then advise you of WP:POLEMIC, you were expected to go "ahh, got it". You're welcome to disagree with it, but you're not welcome to ignore it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• ScotXW also has a very combative style/attitude towards other editors, as shown by these comments over the past few days on Template talk:Firewall software: "I didn't "request" anything, I reverted your bullshit changes", "I would suggest to grab some good documentation and enlighten yourself instead of spreading your lack of knowledge" and "You win. Stay stupid, ignorant (in the German sense of the meaing)". Accompanied by edit-warring on Template:Firewall software (three reverts within 24 h, #1, #2, #3, resulting in a 3RR-warning). Thomas.W 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Scot, I've tried to do more than warn you, and I instead give you some actual examples of when it is ok and when it isn't to use lists of negative links. If you want to debate the finer points of the policy, that is fine (the talk page of that policy is the right place to do that) but that doesn't exempt you from following policy as long as it is in effect, even if you find the policy "convoluted". It isn't required that you agree with the policy, only that you comply with it. Right now would be a great time for you to acknowledge that you accept this and will not add the list back. You have had more than enough warning and explanation, and the last tool we have left to prevent disruption is the block button. I would prefer it not get to that point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:POLEMIC is open to a wide range of interpretations. What many might consider to be an even worse and blatant violation of it, here, which is a whole page of nothing but "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc.", has been frozen and preserved by being fully protected. How can Scott's few lines be considered to be worse than that? Anglicia (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Facepalm WP:DUCK, anyone? 107.219.151.20 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, WP:DUCK. Anyway, the SPA comment has been tagged above as such. Epicgenius (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• I was amused to see my name on that list, considering that the article deleted that got me there was closed by consensus at AfD - but where are the people who !voted for the article to be deleted? Anyway, the above Anglicia (talk · contribs) is very blatantly ScotXW trying to game the system to give the appearance of support. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScotXW. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While unusual for SPI, I have notified Scot and given one last, final plea for him to NOT turn to the dark side here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • CU was inconclusive. I don't think that Anglicia is ScottXW. I suspect that Anglicia is related to Still wasted, who twice tagged the Prisonermonkeys sandbox trying to get it deleted, and also blanked it twice (until the page was protected and Still wasted was blocked as a sock). The suspicion was that Still wasted was either DeFacto or Lucy-marie, considering that both were mentioned on that page. Personally, I think that this is DeFacto, who is still active (the most recent sock according to SPI was blocked on May 14, about a week ago); Lucy-marie's last blocked sock was active a year and a half ago. In any case, I don't suggest blaming ScottXW for the comment above. -- Atama頭 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't think Anglicia was Scot, but it was obvious a throwaway sock of someone, since they seemed to have found ANI so quickly. I was actually rather disturbed to see the SPI filing - nothing like kicking a guy when he's down, when the sock was rather obviously not him the panda ₯’ 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing Edward Furlong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Player334455

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting blocking of Player334455 (talk · contribs), a vandalism-only account: from removing chunks of text with his 1st and 2nd edits to messing up the Athens article in a series of edits, a series of trolling edits at Pnyx including an arbitrary page move to an irrelevant name just yesterday, this account has done zero positive contributions. The user has been repeatedly warned at his talk page, but obviously doesn't care. Judging also by his userpage or what he does with his sandbox, he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Constantine ✍ 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done For future reference, the best place to report stuff like this is at Administrators' intrevention against vandalism (aka "WP:AIV"). Yunshui _水 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. Constantine ✍ 12:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

‎User:Volunteer Marek deleting well-sourced material from Robert Kagan article w/false recourse to BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Volunteer Marek has been engaged in removing any reference to Robert Kagan being a neoconservative, etc., though there are now four RS supporting the characterization, and the material has been stable consensus in the article for more than two years. ‎User:Volunteer Marek makes vague unspecific reference to BLP policy, but refuses to discuss specifics or indicate what provisions in the policy support his actions, thereby obstructing progress on the article.
Note that he recently was engaged in similar conduct on the Victoria Nuland (who is Kagan's wife article. That article has been stabilized, but the arguments in which he attempts to make recourse to policy that doesn't support his assertions is disruptive.
I note that VM was recently brought here in relation to articles on the crisis in Ukraine, to which the Nuland article is directly related, and the Kagan article indirectly. I'm of the opinion that perhaps he has an agenda with respect to eliminating from Misplaced Pages any text that might cast aspersion on the role of US officials in bringing about the ongoing crisis. Note the following edit summaries. He is condescending, dismissive of sources with no legitimate grounds, and makes unsubstantiated allegations of WP:OR, violations , making for a toxic editing environment. There is a thread on the BLP notice board, here, in which some of his baseless and unsupported assertions can be seen
In talk page threads Talk:Robert_Kagan#Dispute_over_sourcing_of_characterization_of_Kagan_as_a_.22leading_neo-conservative.22, Talk:Victoria_Nuland#WP:BRD_Text_of_rewrite_of_section_on_the_extremely_well-known_obscene_remark_made_by_Nuland and Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart I've queried for specifics regarding the policy-based rationale occasions, and have made reference to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Note that he continual dismisses RS on the basis of an apparently false recourse to non-existent provision in the BLP policy. These are the four sources he claims don't meet BLP standards, or in the case of the first, support the statement.

1. Robert Kagan, "Present at the Re-Creation: A Neoconservative Moves On, Foreign Affairs, July-August, 2008.
2. A neocon by any other name, Guardian
3. A conservative split aids Obama on Egypt, Washington Post
4. What Ukraine really needs William Pfaff, Japan Times, May 16, 2014
   

There have been few substantial policy-based statements in the BLP/N thread, and none supports his position, while at least three editors support the characterization of Kagan as a neoconservative, including @Joe Bodacious:, and @Binksternet: aside from me. Nonetheless, VM seems inclined to continually revert the material on false grounds.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:50, 11:07 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This damn thing is already at WP:BLPN . You'll note that Ubikwit's position is not receiving much support there. He appears to believe that if he posts long winded comments there in support of his position then that is enough to restore crap material to a BLP. It's hard to see how Binksternet's comment support his position and other editors such as Cullen and Iselilja point out problems with the reasoning. Joe Bodacious did not disagree (as soon as he realized that BLP applies to some other articles he's interested in).

It's also extremely misleading to pretend that this is about just labeling Kagan as a "neoconservative" (a designation he rejects). The edit under dispute also has a whole bunch of off topic stuff that simply doesn't belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, 1+1=2, not 3. But anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This likely only belongs at WP:BLP/N but critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious, and this material places excessive reliance on editorial columns. The essence is "He is a neocon, though he denies it. He admits his friends are Straussians, though he denies being one. He said a person who denies being something, is one. The section is a mass of contradictory of "Everyone says and he denies" argumentation which, if it belongs in the BLP, needs massive attribution of the opinions, and should not be laid out in "He is A but denies it" style. The bit about "false recourse to BLP" is an extremely disturbing argument to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This posting relates to conduct as much as BLP policy, with which false recourse and misrepresentations are being made.

In your post, you neglect to note that the text in the articles has, for more than two years, assigned a degree of attribution to the sources characterizing Kagan as a neoconservative. It is not even the case that "The essence is "He is a neocon...".

1. Kagan has been described as a neoconservative foreign-policy theorist, although Kagan has adamantly rejected being labeled as a "neoconservative".
2. Because of his association with PNAC and his early endorsement of the Iraq War, Kagan is widely considered a neoconservativeforeign-policy theorist. Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist.
   

I'd also like to know what provisions in the BLP policy support the assertion that "critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious" is relevant to articles on public figures?

Syndicated columnists like William Pfaff are still describing Kagan in these terms, and in association with the PNAC, while the other sources go back as far as 2008.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clue: "Although" is a "word to avoid" for good reason.

That an article has not complied with WP:BLP for two years is not a reason at all to keep it being non-compliant.

Accusing an outside party of " false recourse and misrepresentations" is not really all that likely to impress others.

When one says "They call him 'A' although he denies it" means there is contention about a claim.

A claim about which there is contention is a contentious claim. I wot not how anyone could argue otherwise.

And, amazingly enough, a "syndicated columnist" generally writes opinions -- which I had thunk was reasonably clear, and their opinions should be cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You just asserted here that the article does no comply with BLP: prove it and gain consensus for removal of the material that has been in consensus for more than two years.

Unless you have actual policy-based arguments to proffer, you are engaging in something akin to WP:SOAPBOXING in relation to your personal sentiments about the way Misplaced Pages should be organized.

VM has now reverted two editors that have restored the consensus version today. This seems like an attempt to WP:RGW on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

FYI, the Foreign Affairs article characterizes Kagan as

the chief foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement

etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, Ubikwit. First, somebody explaining WP:BLP policy to you - in the face of your repeated assertions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - is NOT soap boxing. Second, it is a gross mis-characterization that borders on outright lying to claim that the version with the BLP violations is the "consensus version" when several people have pointed out their objections, here, on BLPN and the article itself.

Let me also give you a piece of advice - edit-warring on a BLP to restore contentious materials is a very bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw, that Foreign Affairs article goes on to say that "neoconservative" is not an accurate designation for Kagan, but rather "realist" (whatever that is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

VM continues to be disruptive, starting this thread on my talk page User_talk:Ubikwit#Kagan_-_relevant_portions_of_BLP_policy, and further ignoring the growing consensus on the BLP/N thread,as perUser:Nomoskedasticity(with perhaps one minor adjustment to the text), reverting the consensus text yet again.

Note that in spite of the assertion that VM has

explained" BLP policy to me - in the face of

I was obviously referring to Collect explaining BLP to you, which you then, strangely, called "SOAPBOXING". And sorry, but posting to your talk page the relevant parts of BLP policy is not "disruptive" (can you please just drop the irritating WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric?). Of course you can remove from your talk page if you want, that's your business, but you can't say that you haven't been notified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)