Misplaced Pages

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:38, 25 March 2015 editIzno (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators114,702 editsm →PAs at Griffin: tweak← Previous edit Revision as of 23:15, 25 March 2015 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →PAs at Griffin: replyNext edit →
Line 104: Line 104:
:::::Re: your impression of "protected speech" - I'm not an attorney, and my intention is not to wikilawyer, but it is common knowledge that certain aspects of defamation in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Holland and Belgium are actually not protected speech. You also mentioned above "absolute defense of truth in the UK", but that is cherrypicking the sweet parts of the law. The ] lists quite a few qualifiers to that argument, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss BLP policy as a result of what I '''think''' might hold true. {{xt|Truth: It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.}} and {{xt|Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion}}. There you have two big '''uh-ohs'''. The lead uses contentious material as statement of fact in Wiki voice and it is not reliably sourced - therefore it is not opinion. I consider refusal to modify passages for policy compliance as taking unnecessary risks, especially after editors challenged the material for being potentially libelous and violative of policy. I realize the "honest opinion" defense is a good one, '''but''' {{xt|where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, '''when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable''').}} I wouldn't totally dismiss Moss' book because it does play a role, even if it's minor. It supports some of what Griffin claims in his book. Our job is to present RS material with strict adherence to NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that's what I've been trying to do. Also see the following updated material as an FYI: . Times, they are a changing. I disagree with your position based on my own RL experiences, and the potential and variables we sometimes overlook, or simply cannot predict as absolute. '''When in doubt, leave it out.''' BLP policy also supports avoiding such risk per the words, '''especially if potentially libelous'''. Per ] - {{xt|If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.}} Our dispute isn't about content, it's about compliance with BLP policy. The sources you claim as RS clearly fail the acid test, including Media Matters which is a partisan progressive non-profit website whose mission is to discredit their opponents (conservatives and libertarians) and what '''they believe''' is "conservative misinformation". Griffin's history with ], and his advocacy in the libertarian/conservative political arenas automatically create the COI, therefore MM is an unreliable source for the addition of contentious material per ]. You call my attempts to make the article policy compliant "whitewashing" - I call it strict adherence to BLP policy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC) :::::Re: your impression of "protected speech" - I'm not an attorney, and my intention is not to wikilawyer, but it is common knowledge that certain aspects of defamation in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Holland and Belgium are actually not protected speech. You also mentioned above "absolute defense of truth in the UK", but that is cherrypicking the sweet parts of the law. The ] lists quite a few qualifiers to that argument, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss BLP policy as a result of what I '''think''' might hold true. {{xt|Truth: It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.}} and {{xt|Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion}}. There you have two big '''uh-ohs'''. The lead uses contentious material as statement of fact in Wiki voice and it is not reliably sourced - therefore it is not opinion. I consider refusal to modify passages for policy compliance as taking unnecessary risks, especially after editors challenged the material for being potentially libelous and violative of policy. I realize the "honest opinion" defense is a good one, '''but''' {{xt|where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, '''when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable''').}} I wouldn't totally dismiss Moss' book because it does play a role, even if it's minor. It supports some of what Griffin claims in his book. Our job is to present RS material with strict adherence to NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that's what I've been trying to do. Also see the following updated material as an FYI: . Times, they are a changing. I disagree with your position based on my own RL experiences, and the potential and variables we sometimes overlook, or simply cannot predict as absolute. '''When in doubt, leave it out.''' BLP policy also supports avoiding such risk per the words, '''especially if potentially libelous'''. Per ] - {{xt|If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.}} Our dispute isn't about content, it's about compliance with BLP policy. The sources you claim as RS clearly fail the acid test, including Media Matters which is a partisan progressive non-profit website whose mission is to discredit their opponents (conservatives and libertarians) and what '''they believe''' is "conservative misinformation". Griffin's history with ], and his advocacy in the libertarian/conservative political arenas automatically create the COI, therefore MM is an unreliable source for the addition of contentious material per ]. You call my attempts to make the article policy compliant "whitewashing" - I call it strict adherence to BLP policy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Uninvolved editor commenting on an incorrect claim (which is somewhat tangential) made by ]: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects you ''only'' from prosecution by the U.S. federal government (and also the U.S. states via ]). The 1st Amendment does ''not'' protect you from someone accusing or suing you for slander or libel. So you are actually wrong that the 1st Amendment protects you from the things that you say which may or are claimed to be slander or libel. ] ''may'' protect you, but you need to show proof that what you said about another person is a true statement, among meeting several other criteria (which I don't know off the top of my head). I want to make sure you understand that.<p>{{ping|Atsme}} You should be careful tossing those words regarding another editor per ], as they can (and sometimes are) construed as legal threats. --] (]) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) :::::Uninvolved editor commenting on an incorrect claim (which is somewhat tangential) made by ]: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects you ''only'' from prosecution by the U.S. federal government (and also the U.S. states via ]). The 1st Amendment does ''not'' protect you from someone accusing or suing you for slander or libel. So you are actually wrong that the 1st Amendment protects you from the things that you say which may or are claimed to be slander or libel. ] ''may'' protect you, but you need to show proof that what you said about another person is a true statement, among meeting several other criteria (which I don't know off the top of my head). I want to make sure you understand that.<p>{{ping|Atsme}} You should be careful tossing those words regarding another editor per ], as they can (and sometimes are) construed as legal threats. --] (]) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book ''World Without Cancer'' is quackery, despite abundant evidence that it is exactly that - you have also repeatedly proposed primary research showing a quite different use of amygdalin as if it in some way validates the scam promoted in Griffin's book even though your error has been pointed out probably a dozen times by now you have explained your reasoning many times, consistently unpersuasively, you've proposed farcically unreliable sources such as "geoengineeringwatch", a chemtrail conspiracy site, and you've had several experienced editors reject your proposed edits as violating ].
::::: How many people have to tell you that characterising as "quackery" is not a violation of ], before you finally accept it? Seriously, will you ''ever'' accept it, ''however'' many people tell you? Griffin's book promotes a quack cancer cure, and he erects a conspiracy theory around its failure to achieve acceptance. As a Bircher, he is taking part in the John Birch Society's defence of one of its own, the quack John Richardson, prosecuted for selling the laetrile fraud. His book was an apologia for quackery because ''that's what it was supposed to be''. He never intended to write a neutral book, he set out to write a book in support of a fellow Bircher. History judges this scam harshly: this is not Misplaced Pages's problem to fix.
::::: Despite this you keep asserting BLP violations and "libel", apparently as a way of suppressing opposition to changes that only you seem to want, despite numeorus debates on the Talk page concluding that the content you hate so much violates BLP or constitutes libel. And you continually assert that ''everybody else'' is the problem.
::::: You won't accept contrary views, you won't start RfCs to settle the questions, and you won't drop the ]. And then you assert that the increasingly frustrated response you're getting form several other editors, is nothing to do with your obduracy. It's more than a little annoying. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


== new essay == == new essay ==

Revision as of 23:15, 25 March 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Sanction review

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, , I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits", misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked, its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok this is what I'll do:
  • I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
  • I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).
How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why the above conversation still remains unarchived? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

PAs at Griffin

I ask that you review the following comments which are quite typical of the behavior for which I've requested your attention. These comments are typical of the pattern that has developed on Griffin TP almost every single time I post something, or when I attempt to edit the article which is almost always reverted. It is clearly harassment and serves no helpful purpose in developing consensus. The post that resulted in the current PAs comprises links and excerpts to various WP policies and guidelines, , which I included in an attempt to help clarify some of the questions posed by a new collaborator, . My keyboard was still warm when the following two comments were posted in response to my post rather than in response to the new collaborator's post:

  • <--The remark that "This post is pretty silly", is a PA and unwarranted.
  • <-- The comment, "it's disruptive to repeat this view, which is incorrect and which has previously been rejected here." is also a PA, no diffs were provided and it was unwarranted. Reciting policy on an article TP is not disruptive, it is not repeating a view, it is not incorrect, and if policy was previously rejected, I didn't know about it, and we should probably advise the Foundation so the policies can be rewritten.

If the purpose of DS is to encourage discussion and develop a consensus, then the above two PAs (what appears to be harassment) from the same few editors needs your attention. I am posting it here now because I've let such behavior slide in the past, and look where it got me. One last mention with regards to behavior issues from the same editors. The following appears to be WP:Canvassing. I certainly didn't receive any notice that the 1RR was lifted at Griffin, and neither did any of the other involved editors to my knowledge.

  • March 10, 2015 - notification 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
  • March 11, 2015 - notification of 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
  • February 17, 2015 - pinged another editor in an effort to bypass the 1RR you imposed. I added it because it demonstrates tag-teaming as does the above, but you have already made note of such behavior in the recent past.
  • SPECIFICO made the following statement: While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here.

I find that last diff very disconcerting. Atsme☯ 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm looking into it and have asked for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of reviewing these diffs, and I'm not seeing personal attacks in the first two diffs - the first diff may be mildly uncivil, but certainly not actionable; the second comment is a reasonable statement, although citing policy occasionally is fine - if such repetition does become tendentious or disruptive, then the appropriate place to raise that is on the user talk pages, and follow WP:DR. It can also be a problem to keep repeating that something is disruptive without diffs and in the appropriate venue. I'll comment on the other diffs shortly. Dreadstar ☥ 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as notifying others that the 0RR restriction had ended, it would have been nice for the editor to have notified everyone and placed a note on the article talk page, but there's no requirement to do so and it isn't canvassing. Dreadstar ☥ 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This does appear to be canvassing designed to game the 0RR restriction; and unless there's a very good explanation otherwise, deserves a warning. Dreadstar ☥ 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The final diff appears to be a good faith attempt to help the editor, but it is unhelpful to cast aspersions on others. I can't see it being actionable unless it continues or is being said on article talk pages - article talk pages are never the right place to discuss the behavior of others per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA; instead follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 11:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dreadstar. The canvassing issue is quite obvious as you observed, and I agree with your suggestion that it deserves a warning, but there are other behavioral issues that should factor in to any decision.
Callanecc, I thank you for giving this issue your consideration, and for requesting a second opinion.
No. Dreadstar ☥ 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As much as I regret having to demonstrate the problems at Griffin, I am concerned they will continue until those who are actually responsible for the disruption are held accountable. In that regard, I feel obligated to provide diffs to demonstrate the TE behavior by SPECIFICO which reveals what is actually taking place, and not what he is trying to lead you to believe, the most recent being his ping to you to review a discussion that includes casting aspersions against me by members of the opposition who have taken my comments out of context, and simply refuse to stop the PAs.
SPECIFICO

The following truly needs your attention:

  • March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and its relevancy
  • March 15, 2015 TE re: what the RfC concerned - he claims it was about wording when it was actually about contentious labeling being fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV - not a suggestion for improvement of the article
  • March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and what he believes contentious means - not a suggestion for improvement of the article
  • March 15, 2015 TE re: claims I am misrepresenting policy - serves only to discredit me, not help the article
  • March 16, 2015 TE re: claims again that I fundamentally misrepresented policy - casting aspersions
  • March 17, 2015 TE re: false allegations of WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT
  • March 17, 2015 TE re: repeating the above false allegations citing linked policies above. He posted his response to my TP, which I moved to Griffin TP. March 18, 2015
  • March 19, 2015 TE re: my posts and more groundless allegations
  • March 20, 2015 TE re: calling my post a "straw man argument"
  • March 21, 2015 TE re: repeats his straw man argument
  • March 22, 2015 Pings Callan to review discussion wherein I quoted Mayo Clinic and Cancer.gov, and was again attacked for doing so
Callan, you are already aware of the "group activity", the efforts to sway community consensus and make things appear to be something they are not. In overall scheme of things, his actions could also be considered taunting and/or baiting based on their relentless nature. It actually appears as though they are taking turns trying to wear me down. I don't understand this behavior. Also keep in mind that SPECIFICO has not made one edit to the article itself, much less tried to improve article content except to support further discrediting of a BLP with no regard for WP:NPOV, the latter of which was demonstrated by his support to keep a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead per the RfC. It appears he has difficulty recognizing what actually constitutes a violation of BLP and/or our 3 core content policies, and therein the problem lies. Many of his contributions have focused on casting aspersions to discredit me rather than on article content, and he has done so repeatedly without including relevant diffs.
Steeletrap
June 24, 2014 Steeletrap added a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead which violated policy and created an unstable article as the edit history further demonstrates;
The contentious label in the first sentence of the lead was confirmed to be noncompliant with NPOV as per the recent RfC. Contentious material continues to be added and disputed by editors. Some of the editors who have disputed the contentious material are long time editors with years of experience creating and collaborating on biographies, and have had their work promoted to GAs and FAs.
WP:FRINGE content guidelines have taken precedence over WP:BLP and our 3 core content policies at Griffin, and that must stop, especially considering parts of the guidelines are even being ignored. Rather than go through months of diffs that will confirm TE by the opposition - most of which you have already been made aware - I will provide the most recent diffs which clearly demonstrate my position regarding the opposition's efforts to maintain Griffin as an attack page:
  • March 11, 2015 Steeletrap responds to SPECIFICO, "I'm here to stir things up and make change."
  • March 19, 2015 Steeletrap accuses me of being disruptive
  • March 19, 2015 Steeletrap specifically uses contentious labels that are defamatory and a clear violation of BLP policy.
The above diffs are more than adequate for you to take remedial action against the two named editors per BLP DS. Atsme☯ 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability. Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I shall keep pottering on, but any help on the talk page would be appreciated - especially when discussions get off track or comments are made about other editors not the article (etc). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
How do you think the above comments make me feel? Callan, I was wrongfully accused of SYNTH and OR violations on Griffin Talk because of accusations made by another editor who Dreadstar responded to thinking it was the correct action. I pinged you a couple of times, and what do I find when I arrive at Griffin Talk? You hatted my response to Dreadstar with a note that it was casting aspersions (which I respectfully request that you please remove since I was responding to comments directly above mine which shouldn't require diffs). I told Dreadstar that I wasn't going to initiate an AN, and addressed what Guy said about me, specifically that I was "trying to assert a lede which whistles and points in the opposite direction", and then he ended further discussion of it by stating "And that's enough of this discussion, since Atsme's draft is going nowhere." What do you suppose is the opposite direction, Callan, and what do you make of his comment about ending discussion because my draft is going nowhere? The comments you hatted weren't aspersions, they were truth. . I find it curious that you said nothing about the incivility towards me, or the false accusations, or the fact Guy is demonstrating WP:OWN. Perhaps you can reassure me somehow that I am not being treated unfairly because it certainly appears that way. I'm a big girl, but you know what? It still hurts to even think the possibility exists. Atsme☯ 06:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc PS: Regarding the aspersions, what do you consider the following: ? His statements are an absolute misrepresentation of my work and my intentions, and that doesn't even begin to address the potential of WP:LIBEL regarding the BLP in question. I am also in the process of requesting a review of the AfD close which I disagree with based on WP:AUTHOR. I would very much appreciate a response because it appears, and I hope I'm wrong, that you may not be understanding the full scope of such defamatory statements made against a living person. Atsme☯ 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You urgently need to stop bandying the word "libel" around, since the text you so vehemently object to is protected speech under the US First Amendment, and also, now, is protected by an absolute defence of truth in the UK, so that covers the Wikimedia Foundation's jurisdiction and the place where I live. The intent of repeatedly invoking libel appears to be a chilling effect. It is inappropriate in the context of this particular article, where your claims in respect of the text have been robustly rebutted.
If you dislike my reading of your agenda, then I invite you to consider what you might have said and done that might give me that impression. I think you are a nice person, you can be confident it's not malice or personal animus of any kind. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, with all due respect, it isn't about what I'm saying, it's about your misinterpretation of it, and the statements you've made about me that simply are not true. I presented a proposal, you slammed it and closed the discussion, period the end. See the diffs above. How is that not WP:OWN? Other editors have noticed the problems re:NPOV, or contentious labels, or behavior and a few have commented about it, . In addition to shooting down the opposition at Griffin Talk, you have gone to editor TPs to criticize and discredit me even further. Your arguments rarely if ever include diffs to support your position. I am relieved to know your agenda is not rooted in malice or personal animus but it doesn't make your comments any less hurtful. Please don't forget there is a real person with real feelings at the other end of our discussions, and you should at least try to exert a little more effort into softening your tone.
Re: your impression of "protected speech" - I'm not an attorney, and my intention is not to wikilawyer, but it is common knowledge that certain aspects of defamation in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Holland and Belgium are actually not protected speech. You also mentioned above "absolute defense of truth in the UK", but that is cherrypicking the sweet parts of the law. The Defamation Act 2013 lists quite a few qualifiers to that argument, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss BLP policy as a result of what I think might hold true. Truth: It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true. and Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion. There you have two big uh-ohs. The lead uses contentious material as statement of fact in Wiki voice and it is not reliably sourced - therefore it is not opinion. I consider refusal to modify passages for policy compliance as taking unnecessary risks, especially after editors challenged the material for being potentially libelous and violative of policy. I realize the "honest opinion" defense is a good one, but where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable). I wouldn't totally dismiss Moss' book because it does play a role, even if it's minor. It supports some of what Griffin claims in his book. Our job is to present RS material with strict adherence to NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that's what I've been trying to do. Also see the following updated material as an FYI: . Times, they are a changing. I disagree with your position based on my own RL experiences, and the potential and variables we sometimes overlook, or simply cannot predict as absolute. When in doubt, leave it out. BLP policy also supports avoiding such risk per the words, especially if potentially libelous. Per WP:BLP - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Our dispute isn't about content, it's about compliance with BLP policy. The sources you claim as RS clearly fail the acid test, including Media Matters which is a partisan progressive non-profit website whose mission is to discredit their opponents (conservatives and libertarians) and what they believe is "conservative misinformation". Griffin's history with JBS, and his advocacy in the libertarian/conservative political arenas automatically create the COI, therefore MM is an unreliable source for the addition of contentious material per WP:V. You call my attempts to make the article policy compliant "whitewashing" - I call it strict adherence to BLP policy. Atsme☯ 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor commenting on an incorrect claim (which is somewhat tangential) made by Guy: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects you only from prosecution by the U.S. federal government (and also the U.S. states via incorporation). The 1st Amendment does not protect you from someone accusing or suing you for slander or libel. So you are actually wrong that the 1st Amendment protects you from the things that you say which may or are claimed to be slander or libel. United States defamation law may protect you, but you need to show proof that what you said about another person is a true statement, among meeting several other criteria (which I don't know off the top of my head). I want to make sure you understand that.

@Atsme: You should be careful tossing those words regarding another editor per WP:LEGAL, as they can (and sometimes are) construed as legal threats. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book World Without Cancer is quackery, despite abundant evidence that it is exactly that - you have also repeatedly proposed primary research showing a quite different use of amygdalin as if it in some way validates the scam promoted in Griffin's book even though your error has been pointed out probably a dozen times by now you have explained your reasoning many times, consistently unpersuasively, you've proposed farcically unreliable sources such as "geoengineeringwatch", a chemtrail conspiracy site, and you've had several experienced editors reject your proposed edits as violating WP:SYN.
How many people have to tell you that characterising probably the worst fraud ever perpetrated on American cancer victims as "quackery" is not a violation of WP:BLP, before you finally accept it? Seriously, will you ever accept it, however many people tell you? Griffin's book promotes a quack cancer cure, and he erects a conspiracy theory around its failure to achieve acceptance. As a Bircher, he is taking part in the John Birch Society's defence of one of its own, the quack John Richardson, prosecuted for selling the laetrile fraud. His book was an apologia for quackery because that's what it was supposed to be. He never intended to write a neutral book, he set out to write a book in support of a fellow Bircher. History judges this scam harshly: this is not Misplaced Pages's problem to fix.
Despite this you keep asserting BLP violations and "libel", apparently as a way of suppressing opposition to changes that only you seem to want, despite numeorus debates on the Talk page concluding that the content you hate so much violates BLP or constitutes libel. And you continually assert that everybody else is the problem.
You won't accept contrary views, you won't start RfCs to settle the questions, and you won't drop the WP:STICK. And then you assert that the increasingly frustrated response you're getting form several other editors, is nothing to do with your obduracy. It's more than a little annoying. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Misplaced Pages and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The refs to swearing are so very very well observed. Bugger. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also consider placing MB talk page on GG list

Otherwise baiting will continue just like this particular incident started. There is no reason for any editor to post GG material there while topic ban is in place, not just MB the user. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by placing it on GG list? MB can remove new sections which relate to GG, say that he can't comment or just ignore them. It wouldn't surprise me if he started doing that that people trying to bait him will stop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean use DS to prevent anyone posting GamerGate related material on his talk page for the duration of topic ban - the original EL was not by MB. That's what started all this. It removes the social aspect of discussing GG which was what caused this. There's no reason anyone should post there as MB can't respond. It takes away baiting from all sides. --DHeyward (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
An interesting idea, I'm on the fence about whether the difficultly in advertising and enforcing will make it effective but I'll bring it up in the AE thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice at the top and allow any admin to remove and warn offending editor. Otherwise, I'd bet it becomes a link aggregator place along the lines of "Hey MB, though you might like ..." which I don't think will be helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment is a penguin

Might want to verify the link to my comment... 😄 // coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, that's what happens when you get distracted mid sentence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Figured it was a copy-paste thing, I have issues like that with Firefox from time to time... // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Behdad Sami Page Protection

Hi Callanecc,

I'd like to request that the semi-protection be placed back onto Behdad Sami: http://en.wikipedia.org/Behdad_Sami

The reason it was on there this whole time was because of the amount of slander it received. Could you please put it back on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.100.94 (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

50.53.100.94, you also make your request at WP:RPP where more admins might see your request. Liz 16:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi 50.53.100.94, it's been protected for around 4 years and the issue involved doesn't seem to be as contentious now so it's about time that we check if the protection is still needed. Given that it hasn't been edited since (except by a bot) I unprotected, it's probably alright to leave that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 18. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from March 24. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 25 (calendar).
  • The text of a reference is now more visible when you click on it. It has a blue background. Many wikis already have the blue color. Those wikis can now remove it from their CSS page.
  • VisualEditor is now much faster. For many users it is now at least as fast as the wikitext editor.
  • When you add a list of references in VisualEditor, you now see it right away. You can still change its group by editing it.

Meetings

  • You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 25 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Talk pages using "LiquidThreads" on mediawiki.org will soon use the new system.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiBullying

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiBullying. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

5th-century Hindu temples category deleted

Kindly reinstate the category Category:5th-century Hindu temples, as now there are temples that fall into this category and are categorised accordingly. -Ambar (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Undeleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Could you please place an ARBEE edit notice on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation? As you might imagine, it is a contentious topic that has seen repeated disputes. I think that an edit notice would be beneficial. Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the main problem has been IPs which has been dealt with by the semi. And that the main editors of the article are established users who have already been made aware so I'm not sure how much good a DS edit notice would be? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of the article, the edit notice will serve as a reminder, both to new editors and old contributors. That's all. It helps us remember to watch what we're doing. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)