Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Religion-baiting by User:Barney the barney barney[edit]

You all just broke ten thousand words about one snarky comment and its removal, and it is crystal clear nothing is going to get resolved here. Further posting to this thread cannot conceivably be productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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  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  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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 [1]).
                    "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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 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."[2]
which is definitely not true. Regards. Gaba (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Read! Talk! 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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" [3]. 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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 Wikipedia. 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 (DiscussionContributions) 07:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Redaction of a comment by admin TParis[edit]

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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Conduct_during_discussions: "Wikipedia 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. "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [something or someone] 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 (talk) 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 Read! Talk! 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 Read! Talk! 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Read! Talk! 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 Wikipedia 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki-star/Dragonron back[edit]

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 [4] and [5]). 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 ([6] and [7]), 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 talk to me 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)

ScottXW and his "deletion heros"[edit]

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[ed] 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  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. I do not see myself as a Vandal or as harming the Wikipedia. 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:ScotXWt@lk 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:ScotXWt@lk 12:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Scot, there's nothing remotely convoluted about one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia 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)
  • 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 |  | 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) Anglicia (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScotXW. Dennis Brown |  | 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 |  | 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 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)

User:HappyLogolover2011[edit]

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 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[✆Talk] 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia isn't the place for such things. -- Atama 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)

Disruptive removals by anon IP at Timeline of psychology[edit]

An anon IP, User talk:86.50.88.16, has removed all mention of women from Timeline of psychology, with the justification 'it clearly degrades the quality and is completely useless information.' The user has reverted two attempts to restore the article (one attempt was mine), and has taken a confrontational position on the talk page. I think that the removed content should be restored at least until other editors weigh in on the talk, but don't want to force a further edit war.Dialectric (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and issued 3RR warning since the IP is at 3-in-24, as though this comment and edit summary aren't considered sufficient to merit sanctions ("Woman and feminist stuff needs to go to their respective articles." oh really now?). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article has been reverted again in spite of the 3RR warning. NQ (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The IP is removing content sourced to a website called "Feminist Voices" (http://www.feministvoices.com/), which is "a project directed by Alexandra Rutherford at York University in Toronto, Canada. She is joined on the project by a dynamic group of undergraduate and graduate students who use historical, feminist, critical, and constructionist approaches to analyze the past and present experiences of women and minorities in psychology and society." Alexandra Rutherford is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. It's difficult to know how to treat this site. It may be worth raising it at WP:RSN. Assertions cited to it do seem rather dubious. "1903 – Helen Thompson Woolley published the first dissertation on sex differences, The Mental Traits of Sex" Are we seriously to believe that there were no studies of "sex differences" in psychology before 1903? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Barbara Lloyd "At the beginning of the twentieth century, Helen Thompson Woolley commented on nineteenth and early twentieth-century psychologists' and physiologists' efforts to understand sex differences. She wrote: 'There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot to such an extent as here'" (Sex and Gender, Cambridge University Press, 2002). In other words she was responding to previous theories. I will put this one the article talk page. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. No objections to unblock if they undertake to discuss the issue/the source rather than continuing to revert. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Good call. Paul B may raise some salient points regarding the validity of a particular source, but the IPs behavior is at issue. The source should be discussed and dealt with, but these are two independent issues, and the block was certainly merited. --Jayron32 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Only to try to irritate me, out of spite[edit]

A certain user is now deliberately only un-doing HALF of my entry on the Nascar page, apparently to try to irritate me. In pervious weeks, they had un-done the WHOLE entry, but now they are undoing only HALF the entry, which serves no editorial purpose -- it could only be to try to get under my skin. The entry, when I last finished with it, looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609739597&oldid=609689843 , and now it looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=609739597 , as you can see, the only difference is that they took out the " May 25 ". This is definitely a change in tactic from before when they had taken out the whole entire entry. This makes no real sense, other than just to say "Here I am, I'm still here and I'm going to do anything I can to try to bother you.". I thought this situation was finished as of a few days ago. Coming back here to say this was something I didn't expect to do and didn't want to do. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Have y'all tried:
Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to be nice, I've tried to initiate discussion, and I've tried to explain the reason that we don't do it that way, all to no avail. United States Man (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm apathetic to whoever is right in this, but providing WP:Diffs of each bit would go far in making the other party look like the bad guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make someone look bad; I'm just here because this involves me. Like I said, I will wait until the end of the discussion that I just started at WP:NASCAR and this will be finished. United States Man (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Profane edit - anybody got an eraser?[edit]

Erased. Connormah (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 (talkcontribs) 04:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Jayaguru-Shishya warned.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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[8][9] 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.[10]
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[11][12], and Chiropractic[13]. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page[14]. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.
Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier[[15]] 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: [16],
as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: [17]. "...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: [18]. 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 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dwpaul Talk 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt continued to make unsupported claims at 3RR. See Wikipedia: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)

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

Consensus seems to be against the proposed topic ban. In addition, JPL has apologized for the comments and indicated that he will avoid repeating them, so I think this can be closed. 28bytes (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia that so many of its editors joined in the attacks instead of looking for the real truth. Many people on wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.--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-Wikipedia.--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-Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia. 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 Read! Talk! 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia 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 [19] 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 Wikipedia. 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)
  • Support topic ban. This [20] 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 ten