Deleted lines from Philip J. Klass' Article

Proof that if you are a well-known skeptic, Wikipedia has people willing to bend over backwards
to hack out any criticism or even-handedness. The article has since been turned into a hagiography by the Guerilla Skeptics group. Phil Klass (1919-2005) was the grand old man of UFO skepticism who was also the Avionics Editor at Aviation Week & Space Technology during the Cold War. I would like to thank Eric Barbour for bringing these edits to my attention.

Revision as of 11:41, 19 July 2006 (edit) FancyPants (talk | contribs) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:35, 20 July 2006 (edit) (undo) 172.128.80.60 (talk) (HOLY CRAP, what was WITH the criticism section? wayyy too much of an attack piece, taking up extreme amounts of space for nonencyclopedic soapboxing, also removed nonencyclopedic links, needs pruning) Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	He is credited with coining the term "[[avionics]]," a blending of aviation and electronics.		He is credited with coining the term "[[avionics]]," a blending of aviation and electronics.
−	==UFO Researcherand Skeptic==	+	==UFO researcherand skeptic==
	Klass was a founding fellow of the [[Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal]] (CSICOP). He is best known for his [[Skeptic|skeptical]] investigations of reports of UFOs. He published the bimonthly ''Skeptics UFO Newsletter'' for several years and wrote several books on the subject (see below).		Klass was a founding fellow of the [[Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal]] (CSICOP). He is best known for his [[Skeptic|skeptical]] investigations of reports of UFOs. He published the bimonthly ''Skeptics UFO Newsletter'' for several years and wrote several books on the subject (see below).
−	In his first book, ''UFO's: Identified'', Klass argued that UFO reports were best explained as a previously unknown type of [[ball lightning]]. Though initially speculative and provisional, Klass thought that [[Plasma (physics)|plasma]] was consistent with many UFO reports of bright lights moving erratically. A highly charged plasma might further explain the reported effects of UFOs on the electrical systems of airplanes and automobiles.	+	In his first book, ''UFO's: Identified'', Klass argued that UFO reports were best explained as a previously unknown type of [[ball lightning]]. Though initially speculative and provisional, Klass thought that [[Plasma (physics)|plasma]] was consistent with many UFO reports of bright lights moving erratically. A highly charged plasma might further explain the reported effects of UFOs on the electrical systems of airplanes and automobiles.
−	==Criticismof Klass ==	+	Klass's plasma conclusion met with considerable incredulity, even from some pronounced UFO skeptics who argued that Klass was essentially invoking one mystery to explain another. The [[Condon Committee]], led by the UFO debunking [[Edward Condon]], rejected Klass's theory after assembling a panelof plasma physicists who demonstrated thatKlass was out of his depth. (Clark, 369)
−	Klass's plasma conclusion met with considerable incredulity, even from some pronounced UFO skeptics who argued that Klass was essentially invoking one mystery to explain another. The [[Condon Committee]], led by the UFO debunking [[Edward Condon]], rejected Klass's theory after assembling a panel of plasma physicists who demonstrated that Klass was out of his depth. (Clark, 369) Psychologist David Saunders (a Condon Committee investigator), described ''UFOs: Identified'' as "the most presumptuous book in the history of [[ufology]]".
−	Atmosphericphysicist[[JamesE.McDonald]]offereda detailedrebuttalof Klass' [[ Plasma(physics)|plasma]] hypothesis.Inpart, McDonaldwrote:	+	''Klasswasthevoiceof cool reason, seeking to demonstratethata temporaryinability to fill in the whole story should not open the door to wild speculation. His real argument, like all debunkers', was not with the people who believed that they had witnessed or experienced some paranormal event but with those who made an industryof igniting their imaginations.' ' -[[ MichaelSokolove]] ,"TheDebunkers",''[[The New York Times]] Magazine'', December35,2005, page 58.
−	<blockquote>
−	"My most basic objection to his plasma-UFO theory is that he does not confront the fact that the interesting UFO reports do not involve hazy, glowing, amorphous masses, but reportedly sharp-edged objects often exhibiting discernible structural details, carry discrete lights or port-like apertures, and maneuver for time-periods and in kinematical patterns that are extremely difficult to square with his plasma-UFO hypothesis. It also fails to deal quantitatively with parts of the argument that are, in terms of existing scientific knowledge, amenable to
−	quantitative analysis." [http://web.archive.org/web/20020605152942/http://dewoody.net/ufo/International_Scientific_Problem.html]
−	</blockquote>
−	Klass and McDonald often had an adversarial relationship. Tom McIver (a self-described "fellow skeptic") wrote that shortly after McDonald criticized Klass's plasma theory, "Klass accused McDonald of misusing public funds, resulting in a traumatic government investigation and audit (in which he was cleared, though he committed suicide not long afterwards)." [http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm McIver article, External links]
−
−	According to [[Jerome Clark]] (a UFO researcher and vice president of the [[Center for UFO Studies]]), "Klass's campaign continued in one form or another for some 18 months, though after an audit of his work [[Office of Naval Research|ONR]] noted that it was aware of McDonald's UFO work and no objections to it. Nonetheless, McDonald lost ONR support for future contracts, apparently because ONR feared that Klass would write an article on the episode for the powerful ''[[Aviation Week]]''." (Clark, 370)
−
−	Another example of an attack on a well-known Ufologists was detailed in a 1975 [[FBI]] memo. Klass called the Editor of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin to complain about an article by Dr. [[J. Allen Hynek]] that appeared in the February, 1975 issue. According to the memo, Klass "derided" the decision to publish the article and called Hynek a "fraud". The memo said they responded to Klass with a positive assessment of Hynek: "All of his writings and public statements that were examined prior to the publication of his article in the Bulletin disclose a meticulously objective and scientific view of the UFO phenomenon." When Klass was informed of the FBI’s positive view, especially that he was affiliated with a leading university (Northwestern), the memo says that Klass replied, "He won’t be for long!" The memo concluded with a negative assessment of Klass: "In view of Klass’s intemperate criticism and often irrational statements he made to support it, we should be most circumspect in any future contacts with him." [http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/02/phil-klass-spy-for-fbi.html External links]
−
−	Klass has often been accused of using unfair, baseless "[[dirty tricks]]" in efforts to discredit UFO researchers with whom he disagrees. For example, [[Jerome Clark]] writes:
−	<blockquote>
−	"To destroy the UFO 'problem' Klass concluded that [[ufology|ufologists]] should be the target as much as the UFOs themselves. If the ufologists could be publicly shamed or embarrassed on any grounds (not just professional but personal as well), who would take their pronouncements about UFOs seriously?"
−	</blockquote>
−	Similarly Tom McIver writes that many of Klass's opponents:
−	<blockquote>
−	"have been subjected to ... [[smear campaign|smear treatment]]. [[Richard Kammann]] was a [[CSICOP]] Fellow who quit in disgust, appalled in particular at Klass's response to a once-loyal CSICOPer who dared to criticize the botched statistical methods of a CSICOP investigation. Klass's published response to this critic, said Kammann, contained 'so many smokescreens, [[red herring]]s, [[Non sequitur (logic)|non sequitur]]s, quotes out of context, and misstatements' that it constituted 'intellectual fraud' if not outright [[cover up|cover-up]]. Not only did it ignore all the substantive points of the criticism, it was 'one huge ''[[ad hominem]]'' attack.' Klass 'ignored practically every specific point that [the critic] Rawlins had made. Instead [he] offered blatant ''ad hominem'' attack on Rawlins' motives and personality,
−	bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude misquotation.' Describing his own attempts to reason with Klass, Kammann says: 'The Klass letter started a long and exasperating exchange in which he talked about everything but the statistical errors [the focus of the criticism] and the real cover-up. He kept me busy for a while answering irrelevant questions, while periodically attacking my objectivity, intelligence or integrity. From time to time, he threatened to expose my cover-up of scientific evidence he imagined he had uncovered [and] regularly ignored all my serious answers and questions...'" ([http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm quote source],[http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html#Ref17 Rawlins detailed article of what happened])
−	</blockquote>
−
−	About Klass' tactics, McIver commented:
−	<blockquote>
−	"Kammann's description exactly described Klass's response to me, and I learned it was his standard way of dealing with critics and opponents. Like a sleazy trial lawyer he assaults defendants or witnesses with a nonstop barrage of relentless, inquisitorial demands, fishing for inconsistencies or dirt, and seeking to break, exhaust, and discredit them in any way possible... Klass's general strategy, besides going on an all-out offensive with ''ad hominem'' smears, is to mire opponents in interminable debate, challenging every point and demanding proof for every statement (even all the ones he knows to be true), hoping to frustrate and exhaust opponents with busy work, while himself simply ignoring inconvenient questions raised by his opponents. If any of his challenges are left unanswered, he claims victory. All responses that are made are then further challenged in an endless series, with Klass trying to lure his opponent into answering so many challenges that their responses will contain some detail that Klass can then jump on (by quoting selectively and usually out of context) as a claimed inconsistency or error." [http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm]
−	</blockquote>
−
−	McIver also wrote about Klass' personal attacks on him, after McIver had compiled evidence of financial fraud against a fellow CSICOP's member:
−	<blockquote>
−	"...he launched a smear campaign against me, seeking to destroy my credibility, describing me as a 'Hopeless Kook,' 'obstinate crank,' 'crackpot,' 'one of the dumbest adults alive,' and 'Venomous Pipsqueak' who makes 'wild, baseless claims,' 'completely spurious allegations' and 'Flat-out Lies' he 'knows to be false'."
−	</blockquote>
−	McIver added that Klass put out a lengthy series of flyers labeled the "McIver Forked Tongue" series. [http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm]
−
−	Another example of such smear tactics has recently come to light, in a letter found by historian Rich Dolan in the Canadian national archives. When Klass discovered that UFO researcher [[Stanton T. Friedman]], a former nuclear physicist, was emigrating to Canada with his family, Klass in 1980 wrote a letter to the [[Canadian National Research Council]], who were supposed to investigate Canadian UFO reports. The letter disparaged Friedman’s professional credentials as a nuclear physicist, twice said he had a "mountainous ego," called him "something of an outcast" within the UFO "movement," and that he was a "full-time UFO lecturer (of the 'snake-oil salesman' variety)" whose lectures were "filled with half-truths and falsehoods." Klass requested his letter be secrety distributed to other Research Council members and kept concealed from Friedman. [http://keyholepublishing.com/New%20Klass%20Letter%20Found.htm letter]
−
−	In 1983, Klass suggested that, as Clark writes, "that [[UFO conspiracy theory|UFO cover-up]] proponents were serving the ends of [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] foreign policy." Clark notes that this was a "new wrinkle" "in an unending stream of vitriol from the mouths and keyboards of CSICOP's bombast artists. After all, Klass and his CSICOP colleagues had already characterized us ufologists as [[antiscience]] [[cult]]ists, [[cryptofascist]]s, [[mental illness|mental]] cases, money-grubbing exploiters, and raving irrationalists, and CSICOP chairman [[Paul Kurtz]] had repeatedly assured the press that societal acceptance of anomalies and the [[paranormal]] threatens the fabric of civilization." [http://www.nicap.org/debunk1.htm] (Interestingly, Timothy Good's ''Above Top Secret'' notes that Klass has been accused, by sources Good deemed credible, of being a "[[CIA]] asset", perhaps following the [[Robertson Panel]]'s directives to [[debunk]] UFOs.)
−
−	However, Klass's defenders have questioned Clark's objectivity in assessing Klass, beyond their normal differences of opinion regarding UFOs. The men have butted heads on several occasions; in 1984, a series of friendly letters turned sour when Clark thought that one of Klass's jokes was a "death threat". Clark has also been accused of ignoring Klass's explanation on at least one occasion despite the fact that it was endorsed by the participants in the UFO case. Peter Brooksmith writes: "I've long found it interesting too that in his treatment of the RB-47 case in his UFO 'Encyclopedia', which is so admirable in so many other ways, Jerome dismisses Klass's interpretation of the data as a series of unlikely coincidences. But he doesn't mention that Klass presented that interpretation to the RB-47 crew, who agreed that the 'UFOs' were the product of human error & excitement combined with ghost echoes on the radar. This is a key item in Klass's analysis. Surely it was not just dislike for the man that led Jerome to omit it?" [http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/jun/m11-014.shtml])
−
−	Critics, however, point out that Klass's explanation for the RB-47 case was thoroughly demolished by researcher Brad Sparks, who found, among other things, that Klass had the RB-47 plane sometimes moving at impossible [[supersonic]] speeds in order to get portions of his explanation to work. Sparks also disproved the keystone of Klass's thesis, that the RB-47 [[microwave]] sensors were miscalibrated because of equipment malfunction. Thus, it is argued, it doesn't really matter if the participants endorsed Klass's explanation or not, since it was bogus.
−
−	Questioning the accuracy of the above claims by critics about Klass's character, defenders like to point to instances where Klass behaved in a civil, reasonable manner when debating UFO research. An example given was a 1976 letter to [[Gordon Thayer]] (a [[Condon Report]] investigator), Klass wrote of his and Thayer's disagreements "there are several more basic issues. For these, I want to give you the maximum possible time to do your 'homework' to dig out the strongest possible supportive evidence for your viewpoint. Thus I shall raise them now to provide you at least three months time to find/locate supportive evidence (if same can be found)." [http://www.parcellular.fsnet.co.uk/Klass-to-GDT-8-5-76.htm]
−
−	==The UFO curse==
−	<blockquote>
−	THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PHILIP J. KLASS
−	<br>
−	To ufologists who publicly criticize me, ... or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath: <BR>
−	THE UFO CURSE: <BR>
−	No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs that you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.
−	</blockquote>
−
−	This was originally published in ''Saucer Smear'', October 10, 1983 (Moseley and Pflock 2002:323-24).
−
−	==Quote about Klass==
−
−	* ''Klass was the voice of cool reason, seeking to demonstrate that a temporary inability to fill in the whole story should not open the door to wild speculation. His real argument, like all debunkers', was not with the people who believed that they had witnessed or experienced some paranormal event but with those who made an industry of igniting their imaginations.'' - [[Michael Sokolove]], "The Debunkers", ''[[The New York Times]] Magazine'', December 35, 2005, page 58.
	==Books and articles==		==Books and articles==
Line 72:		Line 72:
	==External links==		==External links==
−	* [http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/02/phil-klass-spy-for-fbi.html Phil Klass -- a spy for the FBI?]
−	* [http://www.cufon.org/cufon/Klass_FBI.pdf FBI file on Phil Klass]
−	* [http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Klass_inter.html article about Klass]
−	* [http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/Klass.html Skeptics UFO Newsletter]
−	* [http://www.csicop.org/si/index/ Index of Skeptical Inquirer articles, by topic]
−	* [http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm Criticism of Philip Klass - from "fellow skeptics" by Tom McIver]
−	* [http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/antiskep.txt Letters from Tom McIver to Klass criticizing Klass's tactics]
−	* [http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/klassvufo.htm Phil Klass vs. The "UFO Promoters," By Jerome Clark, 1981]
−	*[http://www.nicap.org/debunk1.htm The Debunkers vs the UFO Menace, or, Is Ufology Tantamount to Communism? by Jerome Clark, 1992]
−	*[http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/462c02c8b498ad32?dmode=source Post on sci.skeptic announcing Klass' death]
	*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081002167.html?referrer=emailarticle Washington Post article on Klass' death]		*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081002167.html?referrer=emailarticle Washington Post article on Klass' death]
	*[http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/k/klass.htm American Philosophical Society, collection of papers]		*[http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/k/klass.htm American Philosophical Society, collection of papers]
−	*[http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn081205.html APS What's New]
	*[http://www.csicop.org/remembrance.html CSICOP]		*[http://www.csicop.org/remembrance.html CSICOP]
−	*[http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=118 UFO Curse at BadAstronomy]
−	*[http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/crybaby.htm cRYBABY - Klass' response to Rawlings]
	*[http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/ Saucer Smear] Periodical with frequent material on or by Klass.		*[http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/ Saucer Smear] Periodical with frequent material on or by Klass.
		+	* [http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/Klass.html Skeptics UFO Newsletter]
		+	* [http://www.csicop.org/si/index/ Index of Skeptical Inquirer articles, by topic]
		+
	[[Category:UFOs|Klass, Philip J.]]		[[Category:UFOs|Klass, Philip J.]]

Copy of "Awful Wikipdians, A Sampling"

Wikipedia has a long ugly history of abusive trolls who gamed the system to harass people and seem to only exist on Wikipedia to bother selected targets, as certain people have found out. Besides the sociopath "evil patrollers" there are also the determined vandals hitting "targets" for a number of reasons. Before we begin I would like to thank Peter Damian for his work on the subject, and E.A. Barbour for sending me the material on top of the work he also did on the subject. This is not an exhaustive list of these people, just the ones that seemed to embody certain types of Wiki-maniacs.

The Vandals

Runtshit - I know eyes will roll, but Runtshit is still at it having racked up 1768 sockpuppets (but how many truly were him?) just to deface articles on Marxism, Israel-Palestine, and the personal page and work of RolandR (Roland Rance), a British Jewish Marxist and pro-Palestinian activist. Runtshit started in September 2006; they traced his IP to the University of Haifa, Israel. The attacks later came from an IP at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary which meant that he was vandalizing Wikipedia as a grad student. When he was in Haifa he used a number of Bezeq (an Israeli internet provider) IPs; he has a history of  using open proxies when vandalizing Wikipedia, and like a boy scout he prepared a large number of sockpuppets just in case his current account was suspended - many of them were never used. There is a belief that Runtshit was involved with Steven Plaut's IsraCampus organization; Plaut teaches Business Administration at the University of Haifa, and like Runtshit is a farthest-Right Zionist. Runtshit is probably a junior professor now, a fact that probably makes Bertrand Russell roll in his grave.

Grawp - What happens when a Harry Potter-obsessed Dungeons & Dragons player finds Wikipedia. Truly deserving of his own article because the guy allegedly worked with 4channers and Encyclopaedia Dramatica users to move Wikipedia articles to new locations with gibberish and "HAGGAR" as the titles. Grawp (actual name Jeremy D. Hanson; handle is a Harry Potter character) first appeared in January 2005 as JarlaxleArtemis (D&D reference) when he was a college student. He started off as a normal editor, doing work on the Final Fantasy games and other fantasy and science-fiction pages. By June of that year he was arguing with people on their talkpages, by August he was being blocked for "personal attacks." That was the turning point for Hanson; after that it was learning how to subvert the wiki by moving pages around while sticking nasty little factoids he had found out about other Wikipedians in the edit summaries of the page moves, lines that could not be easily removed because of oversights in the programming of the MediaWiki software. Grawp did this hundreds of times. By 2008, there was a Request for checkuser; they had figured out that Grawp was JarlaxleArtemis, and just like Runtshit he started using open proxies and multiple sockpuppets, but unlike the Israeli, all of the discovered sockpuppets have been deleted without a creating a museum of them (probably because Uncyclopedia mocked Wikipedia for creating a "shrine" in its Runtshit article.) According to this page, Hanson moved the personal pages of fellow vandal Willy on Wheels and our old friend Zzuuzz. However like Runtshit, Grawp was involved in the Israel-Palestine editwar as a pro-Israeli. It is unclear if Grawp gave up the vandalism, or if he is still at it, or all the "long-term abuse" admins quit, or that Jimbo fears that he is still out there waiting to strike again like the Zodiac Killer.

The Patrollers

Wknight94 - Little to nothing is known about him except that he lives near Fort Myers, Florida and that he dumped scads of photos on Commons, allegedly taken by him while on vacation, though some might be copyrighted images. Was involved with Wikipedia from 2005 to 2013-ish. Might be William R. Knight (possible LinkedIn account.) Was allowed to become an administrator in July, 2006; RFA got no opposition. Was counseled on being uncivil to Elonka (Elonka Dunin; one of the glitteratti, annoying) and doing pointless page moves. Banned vandals, but would occasionally hit people for no real reason. Only included here because he is too dull to make a separate blog post about him.

Headbomb - Also known to Wikipedians as Gaëtan Landry, was a Ayn Rand-loving physics student at the Université de Moncton in Quebec, Canada; he first showed up in May, 2006. My notes call him "an incredible backstabbing little shit.....[t]he finest of Wikipedians";  he tried to defame British physicist Paul Davies as a theist. Headbomb fought over the Infraparticle article in 2010. Went through three Requests for adminship in 2008-2009, turned down every time. In 2009 Peter Damian tried to start an Association of Established Editors, hoping to pick up the rational and reasonable editors and Headbomb was one of the manipulators who sunk the AEE before it even left the harbor. He used "off-wiki" methods to get the needed votes. He's still fighting people on Wikipedia to this day, we will probably hear from him in the comments thread below. He may accuse us of being fans of Ruggero Santilli (he edited that BLP.)

Stifle - True name Joseph Daly, notes call him ".....[i]n short, a classic robot deletionist." Was made an admin in February, 2006; joined Wikipedia in November 2005. Never edited anything of any value, was just there to patrol pages and delete non-free images mindlessly. AN/I had a thread on his "alleged" abuse in 2009, thread is marked "settled", then that mark is struck through. Liked handing out insulting barnstars. Walked away in 2011, then came back this year.

Skomorokh - Only interesting to me because the name is a Russian term for a medieval jester/harlequin clown. Actual person is probably British; account was started under the name Fsbirdman April 17, 2007, then switched to Skomorokh the next day. Notes say "UK student" and "male." There was some 2008 editing idiocy about the Stormfront (neo-Nazi website) article; Orange Marlin started an AN/I thread about it stating: "I consider this editors activities to be disruptive, lacking in good faith, and borderline racially based. This editor's support of whitewashing the Stormfront (website) article is not acceptable. I ask that this editor be blocked or permanently banned from the project. We don't need his type around here." The next year Skomorokh self-nominated an RfA, would not answer questions from a number of Wikipedians (all from Groomtech; all from ThaddeusB; one from Fastly; all from Carlossuarez46; Juliancolton's sole question), and yet was elected to adminship. Besides the patrolling, was also editor of The Signpost, the built-in Wikipedia newsletter from 2010 onward, though the toll of being a Wikipedian forced him to quit on doctor's orders (too out of shape to breathe?) in 2011, though he kept on grinding until 2012. Skomorokh only occasionally shows up now.

Bbb23 - Another account where no external reality is visible, so there is a great possibility it's a sock puppet; notes claim it is a "he." A big fighter of creationism. Account was created in August 2008, may have sat unused until January 2009, however the editing history seems to have been edited itself; chunks are missing. Was allowed into adminship in 2012. Some voices opposing: "Oppose Bbb23 has a severe case of owning articles. Portillo (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC).....Oppose - I am uncomfortable giving deletion tools to anyone who essentially feels that all unsourced content should be removed (which is what the answers to 17+21 tell me). Policy does not require referencing for every fact, and in practice many many clearly correct things are unreferenced at current. Wholesale removal of uncontentious material is not helpful - we have {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}} tags for a reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)." Bbb23 remains a big reason why the Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) article is so negative, because he watches it like a peeper. In early April 2014, he reverted every small edit made by an IP (142.136.131.97) just because he could.

Aitias - Allegedly German, did a lot of work on German law articles, went through three RfAs, all in 2008; made it in on third attempt. Began on Wikipedia in December of 2007. Had a true hatred of Eric Barbour, tried to get him banned from Wikipedia in 2009 just based on his Wikipedia Review forum comments, a move which failed. Went through two Requests for comment based on his actions, which were pretty cackhanded even for Wikipedia. After arbitration, he lost his admin powers and then either quit or wandered off after 2009. His personal page is still up.

JamesBWatson - Discussed in this Wikipediocracy forum thread; the handle is not this person's real name. Was given adminship in 2010. Blocked 9500 user accounts in four years, 2010-2014. As of 2016, has blocked a total of 11304 users, deleted 34094 pages. Obliterates all the evidence. Admits to have been a nameless IP editor before being JamesBWatson on his person page. Gave confused rationale against favoritism here. Unknown if the handle is a reference to deceased anthropologist James B. Watson (who has no Wikipedia page) or obscure hermaphrodite serial killer James B. Watson (also no Wikipedia page.) Also had "alternate" account JamesAWatson, proving what a robot this person really is.

Other accounts listed in the document

Hrafn (Tim Makinson of Dunedin, New Zealand); SheffieldSteel (previously mentioned by me in Scientology articles, alleged sockpuppet with IP in Belgium); KoshVorlon (Dave Trombley); SarekOfVulcan (Garrett Fitzgerald); and Roux (aka Mancunium.)

For each of these, there are fifty more on Wikipedia.

***

As of this moment, this blog has hit 40,208 views! I would like to thank all my readers across the globe!! With luck we will hit a million views right before Wikipedia implodes!

Dumping ground for the James Randi BLP material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655

User talk:2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention: This IP address, 2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655, is registered to Comcast IP Services, L.L.C.. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact Comcast IP Services, L.L.C. to report abuse. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report. If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Comcast IP Services, L.L.C., to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time. If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Hi, 2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655. Thank you for the good copyedits to the article James Randi. I wondered about this removal of content that you did, especially the edit summary. Are you saying you are Randi? If you are, we're very honored, and can you prove it? Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Join us!?

As you can see from editing your article there are quite a few minor clean-up items to find, so if you feel like sticking around please think about signing up for an account (but you can stay an IP) and putting in some edits on Wikipedia from time to time. Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, James Randi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________

Is this IP Randi himself? (And a little help with harassment, please?)

Page protected to stop incipient edit-warring. No further admin action needed at the moment (and hopefully, none will be ever required). Editors requested to help with sourcing at the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2015 (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.

---

An IP is editing James Randi rather fast. I may be naive, but I think he may be Randi, especially considering this edit summary. I've posted on their talk, and also made a null edit to the article asking for response, but I guess the person doesn't know about talkpages or histories. If it's Randi, I would really like to talk to them, especially before people start reverting and blocking him. Any suggestions? I'm a little extended at the moment reverting the storm of socks of User:Kutsuit who follow me around and revert all my edits — I'd much rather talk with Randi, I must say. A little help reverting, please? Bishonen | talk 20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Wow, this summary does suggest we are graced by the presence of the great man himself. Mr Potto (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This one even more so. That was the link I meant to give. I guess I'm too star-struck to make a proper diff. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

My concern is people may start reverting as "unsourced", not to mention blocking. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

And possibly should, since any IP can type "my" and possibly impersonate anyone they want. General Ization ^Talk 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As cool as it would be to see James Randi editing (assuming it is him), I'm conflicted because I normally act on the assumption that subjects should not edit articles about themselves. That said, his edits thus far appear to be minor phrasing, only removing material that is no longer applicable (like a planned-then-cancelled book). I'm not seeing any reason to revert other than "subject editing article," but they're edits that anyone else could have reasonably made. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with the man and his work, and those edits look genuine enough to me to not be the work of a faker. And though editing one's own biog is generally frowned on, the edits look modest, fair and factual (as, in fact, is Mr R himself ;-) Mr Potto (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs a source but other than that the edits are uncontroversial and do not need reverting, no matter who the IP is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've implored him to respond on his (the IPs) talkpage, but it's like most noobs: they don't know they have a talkpage, or that the page they've been editing has a history. And IP's don't even get an alert, do they? Yes, they're fine edits. I hope nobody goes wikilawyer on them. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Ceasing to be star struck and simply looking at edit quality is all that is important here. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a charming comment, Fiddle Faddle. Did I mention they are fine edits? Of course I looked at them carefully before posting on ANI. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

I feel as if I have offended you, which was not my intent. Perhaps I was stating the obvious, yet sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. I shall now go and hide under my favourite rock. Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the IP geolocates to Florida[328] and it appears that Randi lives in Florida.[329] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the putative Randi's edits have just been reverted. General Ization ^Talk 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by Winkelvi. I reverted back and referred him to ANI, but rather than look here he reverted again. Great. I'm really tired of idiots for today. I'm going to bed. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What's the deal with the assumption the anon IP is James Randi? How silly to believe "celebrities" are exempt from BLP policy regarding unsourced content. And a lot of it filled with peacock terminology to boot. If it is him (and we don't know for sure if it is), he's no different than any other editor in Wikipedia when it comes to policy. And...what if he did register an account? Isn't all of this speculation actually WP:OUTING and also a violation of policy? Perhaps he doesn't want us to know it's him. Perhaps he does. Perhaps it's not him but his spouse. Perhaps it's his next door neighbor, or bridge partner, or best friend? Perhaps all of this speculation is ridiculous. And since you're throwing around personal attacks by way of childish name-calling, Bishonen, the only "idiot" I see here is the editor(s) who think the possible interaction with a celebrity means anything at all. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If "he" (and I'm as skeptical as they come) didn't want to known to be the editor, he wouldn't be typing "me" and "my" in his edit summaries. FYI, I reverted your warning to the editor about OR. We don't know yet that "no reliable, published sources exist"; the IP just didn't supply them. At this point, {{uw-unsourced1}} might be appropriate, but a warning about OR is not. General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Whomever the IP is, they are still violating BLP policy. And if they want to continue to contribute content, they need to be aware they are violating policy and content contributed that is not sourced (especially so much of it) needs to be removed immediately. Because, after all, the article is still a BLP and we have rules for a reason. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Bishonen shouldn't have implied you were an idiot and should immediately clarify or retract that statement. It was hopefully not directed at you, but it doesn't read well.

The reason folks think it's him are the edit summaries in the two diffs linked at the top of this thread: [330] and [331]. Obviously far from dispositive, but because we assume good faith, let's assume the IP isn't lying in those edit summaries. That's not to say that unsourced edits should be accepted--they shouldn't--but that there's no reason to speculate as to who else it could be. As far as outing, it doesn't apply when the editor tells us who they are. agtx 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi appears to be stepping of to an edit war in order to enforce their POV regarding these edits, instead of discussing them, as is required. They are up to 3 reverts at this time. BMK (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a POV about the edits, I have a POV about policy. And continually adding the unsourced content back into the article is a violation of policy. Removing unsourced content from a BLP is not a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And WV (3 reverets) just templated me (2 reverts) for edit warring. Pot/kettle/black. BMK (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Winkelvi is right. Since when do we allow subjects to dump a mass of unsourced awards (and some closely paraphrased text) into their bios? Move the text to the talk page and find proper sources for it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Neil, don't get your pants all twisted. If the IP is Randi, it doesn't help Wikipedia much by treating him as if he an Ememy of the People, instead of explaining to him the problems and guiding him to sort them out. If he is Randi, than getting permission from his own foundation to license the material is a snap, and sourcing a piece of cake. Since none of the material was defamatory, bringing down the BLPhammer is inappropriate, and not what the BLP policy was intended for. BMK (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite your assurances, sourcing is not a piece of cake. See my and NQ's posts below. Never mind the issue of weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point - a piece of cake for him, assuming he's Randi. Have you asked on the IP's talk page? Have you dropped an email to the Foundation? Do you think it's possible that we could AGF that it is Randi, and that's he's simply unfamiliar with our ways and needs assistance, instead of assuming that someone decided to pretend to be Randi and add perfectly innocuous material to his article? (Why?) BMK (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

When I turned up empty on sources for the society memberships, I looked up his entry on Marquis Who's who and emailed him for confirmation but the personal email address listed does not seem to exist anymore. Like I said on the talk page, I've emailed the foundation after the IP inserted the copyrighted material. - NQ (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great, hopefully they can clear up some questions, like was the IP Randi or not, and will the Foundation license the copyrighted material. Will you report the results on the article talk page? (I'm assuming this AN/I report will have scrolled off by then). BMK (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NQ just removed the text contributed by the IP as a copyvio (yet another wrinkle). General Ization ^Talk 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You all need to read the current KWW/TRM ArbCom case, where it is being established that the sourcing doesn't necessarily have to come with the immediate edit, that time should be given when appropriate to allow sourcing to be provided, especially when the material is not defamatory. Considering the signs, which are extremely good, that the IP is Randi, then sourcing should be quite easily come by for him. Why not, in the meantime, mark the material with a "fact" tag, and wait for the IP/Randi to respond to the template you left on their talk page. BMK (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If Arbcom wants to nuke WP:BURDEN then we'll handle that if it passes. I've spent a good chunk of the last hour trying to find proper sources for his society memberships - it's not easy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've searched almost all the databases I have access to for a reliable source and I came up empty. - NQ (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• fwiw, about whether it is Randi or not... this edit summary says: ": I entered the value of my MacArthur grant." and this one says: "I deleted the reference to the Skeptic Magazine contribution I used to do" So I take that as a declaration that the IP = James Randi. Could be someone lying but AGF.... Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This AGF observation still means nothing. If it is him, he still has to abide by policy and the article still needs to be written according to policy. Why is this even being discussed as if we should wink-wink/nod-nod and let BLP violations go because the article subject has added content? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, let's treat him like a piece of shit and not help him to master the process. BMK (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If following policy regarding BLPs and the language contained within the canned warning left on his talk page about being certain to include reliable references with content added is treating someone "like a piece of shit", then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, clearly the entire structure of the encyclopedia would implode if we didn't follow every single rule to the exact letter immediately with a jerking knee, without consideration for the situation, circumstances or content. I also see now why it is your name appears as a subject on the noticeboards so often. That, at least, is useful to know. BMK (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely bizarre. An editor has just replaced +10,290 characters into the article without a single piece of verification. Are biographies exempt from what I thought was the ultimate policy of this project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, Dr. Chrissy, anyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here. BMK (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - just what is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what you consider my history to be, but have you heard of Assume Good Faith?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Turning a situation not about me into something about me as a way to win an argument; how entirely helpful and productive. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. If your comments aren't treating someone "like a piece of shit", I don't know what is. But yes, let's get all worried about whether or not we are behaving wrongfully against someone we are assuming is a celebrity (even though we still don't know who the anon IP is) and treat established editors (who are merely trying to keep an article within the boundaries of policy) like worthless targets and villains. Talk about effed up priorities. And, yes, DrChrissy, completely bizarre. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But this situation became about you, at least in some respect, because of the way you behaved: didactic, closed off, bureaucratic and totally lacking in AGF. It's not bad to act in that manner about obvious vandalism, or promotionalism, or defamatory BLP material, but this wasn't one of those situations, and you behaved as if it was, without consideration of the circumstances or what the best response would be. Your knee jerked, you set your course, and you would not be swayed. That's not good editing, that's very bad editing, bad for the project. You think you know what's what, but you're not there yet, not by a long shot. BMK (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't feel you should be lecturing another editor about AGF after the edit you just made about me!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"But this situation became about you". No, it didn't and it never has been. But keep telling yourself that if you must. Although why you would is "beyond my ken". "that's very bad editing, bad for the project" What's bad for all of us is your insistence on making this about editors rather than edits (the comments you made to DrChrissy above included). Now, if you're done criticizing editors, I'm happy to discuss content, policy, etc. with you. If not, then I'm done discussing with you because it's really just all a waste of time and bytes and does nothing productive. Unless, of course, you have a legitimate complaint about me. In which case, you are free to start a new discussion on same at this noticeboard. Otherwise, please drop the darts and arrows and walk away. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just reinstated the IP edits, with the edit summary "reinstating edits from IP editor; no problem letting them remain for a short time while IP editor's identity is sought to be confirmed or clarified." In response to a criticism of the revert on my talkpage, I'll copy here what I wrote there: "Several editors have suggested that the IP editor appears to be Mr. Randi himself, or perhaps someone working closely with him. Given that there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy of the edits, I perceive little downside in leaving them in place for a short time while the editor is being asked to check in on his talkpage. In these circumstances, and consistent with the views of others expressed at ANI, the upside of treating a BLP editor with courtesy in the event that it turns out to be the article subject, outweighs the downside of allowing the edits to remain for a day or two if it turns out it is not." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad: Thanks for that very common sense approach. BMK (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________

James Randi: Revision history

---

(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version,  m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

• (cur | prev) 05:27, 29 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,765 bytes) (-59)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Applejuicefool (talk): Unnecessary detail and WP:UNDUE undue weight. (TW)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:20, 29 July 2015‎ Applejuicefool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,824 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (→‎Personal life) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 07:22, 25 July 2015‎ Seth Finkelstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,765 bytes) (+117)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: added citation per request (not sure formatting is fully correct)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:07, 24 July 2015‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (87,648 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:47, 24 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,633 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: cn tag added - item should probably be removed if not sourced soon) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:42, 24 July 2015‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,627 bytes) (-73)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: rm tags) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:41, 24 July 2015‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,700 bytes) (-8,635)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: copyvio http://web.randi.org/about-james-randi.html) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:34, 24 July 2015‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,335 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (rmv as the protection has expired) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:04, 24 July 2015‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (96,380 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: {{Puffery}} {{Refimprove}}) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:43, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,350 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: more "Mr." removal) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:41, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (96,394 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: fix) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:40, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,395 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: also warranted) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:39, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,374 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: tag) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:39, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,351 bytes) (-692)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: duplicative with above) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
• (cur | prev) 14:37, 24 July 2015‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,043 bytes) (-919)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: a little cleanup of "Mr." usage, removal of excessive length from some citations) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
• (cur | prev) 12:34, 24 July 2015‎ 163.1.32.36 (talk)‎ . . (97,962 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Added links) (undo) (Tags: canned edit summary, Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
• (cur | prev) 23:27, 22 July 2015‎ Abecedare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,958 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (Adding {{pp-dispute}}) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:27, 22 July 2015‎ Abecedare (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (97,913 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected James Randi: Edit warring / content dispute; before the situation spirals out of control ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 23:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:08, 22 July 2015‎ Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,913 bytes) (+10,290)‎ . . (reinstating edits from IP editor; no problem letting them remain for a short time while IP editor's identity is sought to be confirmed or clarified) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:29, 22 July 2015‎ NQ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,623 bytes) (-10,290)‎ . . (copy-vio - http://web.randi.org/about-james-randi.html. (c) belongs to the James Randi Educational Foundation) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:20, 22 July 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,913 bytes) (+10,290)‎ . . (Undid revision 672643717 by Winkelvi (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:20, 22 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,623 bytes) (-10,290)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Beyond My Ken: Last revert - yes, do see WP:BRD along with the talk page that says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article". (TW)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:17, 22 July 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,913 bytes) (+10,290)‎ . . (Undid revision 672641388 by Winkelvi (talk) Please see WP:BRD, and do not edit war) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:58, 22 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,623 bytes) (-10,290)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Bishonen (talk): Doesn't matter who it is - WPBRD and WP:REF applies to everyone. (TW)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:57, 22 July 2015‎ Bishonen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,913 bytes) (+10,290)‎ . . (Undid revision 672640163 by Winkelvi (talk). That was probably Randi himself, please see ANI, Winkelvi.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:47, 22 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,623 bytes) (-10,290)‎ . . (Undid revision 672639084 by 2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655 (talk)everything added is unsourced - appears to be WP:OR) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:43, 22 July 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,913 bytes) (-1,630)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: remove huge chunk of WP:UNDUE - article is about Randi, not his spouse) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:38, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (99,543 bytes) (+10,290)‎ . . (→‎Awards and honors: Significant additions to "Awards and Honors" added...) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
• (cur | prev) 21:33, 22 July 2015‎ NeilN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,253 bytes) (+235)‎ . . (→‎Magician: add ref) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:08, 22 July 2015‎ NeilN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,018 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Magician: will add refs) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:16, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,010 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: a couple of small changes, for better clarity.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:04, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,024 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Uri Geller: A small correction...) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:59, 22 July 2015‎ Bishonen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,001 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Hey, IP editor, could you please stop editing the article for a minute and answer my question on your talkpage, User talk:2601:589:0:26E8:5DE4:4D15:E373:655?) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:56, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,000 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Views on religion: I added "much" to "more fun.") (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:53, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (88,995 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (→‎2010s: I added "a.k.a. Deyvi Peña") (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:50, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (88,975 bytes) (-523)‎ . . (→‎2010s: I removed the reference to the planned Jillette book, since cancelled.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:47, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,498 bytes) (-145)‎ . . (→‎James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF): I deleted the reference to the Skeptic Magazine contribution I used to do.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:44, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,643 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Exploring Psychic Powers... Live television show: I simplified the rather vague account and the repetitions...) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:05, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,652 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (→‎Skeptic: a very few clarifications, mostly grammatical.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:49, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,581 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎Skeptic: I entered the value of my MacArthur grant.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:42, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,571 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Author) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:34, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,532 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Author: I cleaned up the closing of the sentence.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:01, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,529 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (→‎Magician: I added my professional affiliations.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:54, 22 July 2015‎ 2601:589:0:26e8:5de4:4d15:e373:655 (talk)‎ . . (89,313 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Magician: I only changed the word order to provide better clarity...) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:05, 19 July 2015‎ Jason Quinn (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (89,315 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (Clean up duplicate template arguments using findargdups) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:09, 15 July 2015‎ Widr (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (89,338 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 98.178.169.38 using STiki) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:07, 15 July 2015‎ 98.178.169.38 (talk)‎ . . (89,351 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (Fixed typo) (undo) (Tags: canned edit summary, Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
• (cur | prev) 15:19, 15 July 2015‎ 202.89.187.234 (talk)‎ . . (89,338 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:54, 15 July 2015‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,320 bytes) (-177)‎ . . (removing old analysis from 2014. 2015 Supreme Court decision changes this.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:42, 15 July 2015‎ 50.149.4.121 (talk)‎ . . (89,497 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Personal life) (undo)

________________________________________________________________________

Line 70

Randi was awarded a [[John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation|MacArthur Foundation]] [[MacArthur Fellows Program|Fellowship]] in 1986. The fellowship's 5-year grant helped support Randi's investigations of faith healers, including [[W. V. Grant]], [[Ernest Angley]], and [[Peter Popoff]], whom Randi first exposed on ''The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson'' in February 1986. Hearing about his investigation of Popoff, [[Johnny Carson|Carson]] invited Randi onto his late-night TV show without seeing the evidence he was going to reveal. Carson appeared stunned after Randi showed a brief video segment from one of Popoff's broadcasts showing him calling out a woman in the audience, revealing personal information about her that he claims comes from God, and then performing a laying-on-of-hands healing to drive the devil from her body. Randi then replayed the video, but with some of the sound dubbed in that he and his investigating team captured during the event using a radio scanner and recorder. Their scanner detected the radio frequency Popoff's wife Elizabeth was using backstage to broadcast directions and information to a miniature radio receiver hidden in Popoff's left ear. The information had been gathered by Popoff's assistants, who handed out "prayer cards" to the audience before the show, instructing them to write down all the information Popoff would need to pray for them.<ref name="Faith Healers">[[#Randi 1987|Randi 1987]], pp. 139–181</ref><ref name="Heavenly Messages">{{cite news |title=Skeptics' Revelations: Faith Healer Receives 'Heavenly' Messages Via Electronic Receiver, Debunkers Charge |first=John |last=Dart |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-11/local/me-5518_1_faith-healer |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=May 11, 1986 |accessdate=August 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Randi Debunks Popoff">{{YouTube|id=q7BQKu0YP8Y|title="James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer"|link=no}}</ref>

+

Randi was awarded a [[John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation|MacArthur Foundation]] [[MacArthur Fellows Program|Fellowship]] in 1986. The fellowship's 5-year, $272,000 grant helped support Randi's investigations of faith healers, including [[W. V. Grant]], [[Ernest Angley]], and [[Peter Popoff]], whom Randi first exposed on ''The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson'' in February 1986. Hearing about his investigation of Popoff, [[Johnny Carson|Carson]] invited Randi onto his late-night TV show without seeing the evidence he was going to reveal. Carson appeared stunned after Randi showed a brief video segment from one of Popoff's broadcasts showing him calling out a woman in the audience, revealing personal information about her that he claims comes from God, and then performing a laying-on-of-hands healing to drive the devil from her body. Randi then replayed the video, but with some of the sound dubbed in that he and his investigating team captured during the event using a radio scanner and recorder. Their scanner detected the radio frequency Popoff's wife Elizabeth was using backstage to broadcast directions and information to a miniature radio receiver hidden in Popoff's left ear. The information had been gathered by Popoff's assistants, who handed out "prayer cards" to the audience before the show, instructing them to write down all the information Popoff would need to pray for them.<ref name="Faith Healers">[[#Randi 1987|Randi 1987]], pp. 139–181</ref><ref name="Heavenly Messages">{{cite news |title=Skeptics' Revelations: Faith Healer Receives 'Heavenly' Messages Via Electronic Receiver, Debunkers Charge |first=John |last=Dart |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-11/local/me-5518_1_faith-healer |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=May 11, 1986 |accessdate=August 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Randi Debunks Popoff">{{YouTube|id=q7BQKu0YP8Y|title="James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer"|link=no}}</ref>

Line 97

In 1996, Randi established the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]. Randi and his colleagues update JREF's blog, Swift. Topics have included the interesting mathematics of the [[one-seventh area triangle]]. Randi also contributes a regular column, titled "'Twas Brillig," to [[The Skeptics Society]]'s ''[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]]'' magazine. In his weekly commentary, Randi often gives examples of what he considers the nonsense that he deals with every day.<ref name="si-fakers">{{cite journal |last=Randi |first=James |date=July 2005 |title=Fakers and Innocents |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=29 |issue=4 |location=Amherst, NY |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |issn=0194-6730 |accessdate=October 29, 2006 |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/randi.html |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20061027131225/http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/randi.html |archivedate=October 27, 2006}}</ref>   Line 101 In 2012, magician [[Penn Jillette]] announced that he was working on a biography of Randi.<ref name="ReligionMorality">{{cite interview |last=Jillette |first=Penn |authorlink=Penn Jillette |interviewer=Ryan Shaffer |title=Morality, Religion and Bullsh*t: An Interview with Penn Jillette |url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-12-morality-religion-and-bullsht-an-interview-with-penn | date=December 2012 |publisher=American Humanist Association |location=Washington, D.C. |accessdate=October 9, 2013}}</ref>

+

In 1996, Randi established the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]. Randi and his colleagues update JREF's blog, Swift. Topics have included the interesting mathematics of the [[one-seventh area triangle]]. In his weekly commentary, Randi often gives examples of what he considers the nonsense that he deals with every day.<ref name="si-fakers">{{cite journal |last=Randi |first=James |date=July 2005 |title=Fakers and Innocents |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=29 |issue=4 |location=Amherst, NY |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |issn=0194-6730 |accessdate=October 29, 2006 |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/randi.html |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20061027131225/http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/randi.html |archivedate=October 27, 2006}}</ref>