Misplaced Pages

Shlomo Carlebach

I was hoping to enlist your help, since you've been involved in this issue before. An anon user insists on continuing to add a link to an article alleging sexual abuse by Carlebach. Despite the fact that I have tried to add this information before, I have warned him that the decision was made to leave it out by an admin, after a very long discussion. I'm bordering on 3RR on this page, and don't want to violate the rule. Thanks. 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ckessler, please stop adding the controversy section until you've reached an agreement with the other editors on the page. First and foremost, you have to find reputable sources, then stick very closely to what they say, without adding your own opinion. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)"

"When writing about individuals one must be even more careful to include only verifiable information from reliable sources; I'm dubious of the sources listed here, and the nature of the anonymous allegations. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"

I could have sworn that at some point I tried to use the Lilith article as a cite. I'll look through the history and see if I can find it. Ckessler 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help ?

I am not familiar enoug with the process and how to undlete that article.

Can you undelete it. What about due process and AFD ? Thanks, Zeq 08:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&page=Iranian+involvement

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CJCurrie#Please_reconstruct

Tnx. Zeq 10:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help ? I tried to talk to CJ but no response (uncivil). can you as an admin reconstruct the dleted article ? Zeq 08:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe of intrest

http://www.axt.org.uk/essays/sacks1.htm Zeq 10:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP defamatory statements need immediate deletion/ammendment

Hello SV, I dont know if you missed this. Omura article again. Please take a thorough look at this, as it really is clearly defamatory and anti BLP: and

I set the argument out twice as clearly as I could, but Crum375 did not actually address the point made. The lead in paragraph is factually incorrect - confirmed by both the summing up Tribunial statements that are given lower down. What is needed is to insert that the decision of the Tribunial in both cases - in the Tribunial's own words - was because BDORT/PMRT etc was used to the exclusion of standard tests to confirm findings. Anyone can read that what the lead says is that Gorringe was found guilty for using BDORT (ie just for using it); and also because they opined that it was not scientific etc - which is also not what the Tribunial actually said - again as explicitly quoted lower down. This, left as it is, is obviously not only totally inaccurate - but damaging to Dr Omura, as it says that a doctor who used BDORT was found guilty. Which I am sure will please anyone with a (hidden) bias against Omura/BDORT. However it puts an official medical opinion on BDORT that does not exist - which is not just to Dr Omura and of course suggests strongly that no one should use BDORT and that Dr Omura is the proponent of a technique that's use has been declared inappropriate by medical people - which to repeat, is not what the Tribunial ruled, in both cases, as confirmed irrefutably by the Tribunial report summing-up statements quoted in the article lower down. This is the main point.

The first part of the sentence also sings loud and clear with the WP:OR that the only scientific etc claim, which is not citated and is an 'anti-information' sentence - ie proposes a fact based on lack of refuting information, and also breaks BLP as it suggests something without proper citation that is very potentially damaging, if not already, and so needs speedy deletion/ammendment. Not to mention that basic accuracy is needed.

I also asked you to comment on Crum's rationale for the 'disclaimers' that he has previously been told by two Admins that they are not appropriate to WP. Again, someone anti Omura/BDORT would relish them.

Please act speedily re the BLP issues - as again WP may not be party in any way to defamatory statements as J. Wales is quoted himself in the BLP page:

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Misplaced Pages, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Only scientific etc is not citated. The inaccurate representation of the Tribunial in the lead in is not only inaccurate very negative statement refuted further down in the article but as is, is potentially highly damaging and influencial as such to Dr Omura and his reputation and work, and all the other MDs/PhDs that use his work. It is also damaging to Gorringe himself, as the sentence ignores para 292 of the report where he is quoted as saying (with emphasis recorded on his behalf) that he knows that BDORT/PMRT etc findings need to be backed up by standard lab tests. But because he did not do this he was dismissed. That is, currently the article also completely misrepresents Dr Gorringe and his actions and the reason for his dismissal, which is not OK.

Thanks for the attention.Richardmalter 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO BLP would not apply in principle if Mr. X invents a machine (let's say) and the machine, when used by someone else, does not work as expected. Also, if that machine is evaluated by some group, which says that the design is defective, that would not invoke BLP rules, IMO. BLP would kick in when we say that Mr. X cheated, lied, stole, or otherwise did something illegal or immoral. Creating an invention that is controversial or deemed defective by some, would not be defamation of the person's character and hence would not be considered 'derogatory' to the person. Lots of people invent things that don't work (I have myself ;^)) - that is not a BLP issue per se. Having said all of that, we still must meet all of WP's normal attribution rules, and the stronger ones that apply to controversial material in general, just not BLP. Crum375 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why it matters so much to focus on the Tribunal's finding (if indeed this was their finding) that BDORT/PMRT etc was used to the exclusion of standard tests, and that it was this, rather than the use of it in and of itself, that was problematic. What they're saying, in other words, is that BDORT doesn't work, so any medical practitioner who uses it may only use it as an adjunct, and must also do the regular medical things with the patient too. That doesn't strike me as much of an endorsement. SlimVirgin 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

SV, no this is not correct as a matter of citated fact. First we know as a citated fact, twice, that the Tribunial dismissed Gorringe because he used BDORT/PMRT etc to the exclusion of other tests. This is the stated reason, twice. There is no confusion up to here. But, you can read that the lead in does not say this, it says something quite different. The accuracy that Crum insists on has to be consistent - if not it is glaring POV/WP:OR - or ie, warped representation. This is the first problem. It would not take much to fix it, I dont understand the resistance, but it needs doing. A glaring inaccuracy cant really be tolerated - and esp. that it involves living people as I have described. I insist that WP policies re accuracy and living people be upheld, immediately, it is intolerable that further damage be done - as it has been by the version that was edit warred over for months by ALL parties. Then, they also say that they dont reckon BDORT works - and there is no argument re this either. But this is not the reason for Gorringe's dismissal. SV, you are confusing this, very clearly. We have to be clear in the representation of what happened to living people. Also as I note the article ignores para 292 wher Gorringe notes his understanding for the need for follow up checks. If you read this para (and we do the homework as Crum has done with a lot of the other tribunial material) the real story is clear and simple. Gorringe stated he knew he needed follow up checks, but failed to get them, and so was dismissed for that Tribunial-stated reason. If re misrepresent, and say he was dismissed for using BDORT/PMRT in/of itself we are blanket broadcasting that Dr Omura's technique has been ruled as 'not to be used' by medical professionals - which is not what the Tribunial said (explicitly), (despite its many negative opinions of it - though BTW unqualified, as they were not scientifically qualified to be able to give any valuable comment on electromagnetism/resonance phenomena that Omura et al says it is based on), as this will certainly be damaging to Dr Omura's work. The point is really simple: currently it is grossly inaccurate, which can be verified by reading the very citations used lower down in the article, and it is potentially if not immediately very damaging to declare a false/inaccurate summary of a Tribunial finding of a technique advocated by Dr Omura. I really dont see why the resistance to modify this passage in any WP:BLP/general need for accuracy. And it needs to be done very quickly.Richardmalter 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We have 3 main sources that describe the Gorringe cases: NZT1, NZT2 and the summarizing (secondary source) Quackwatch article. I invite any interested neutral parties to read these sources fully and carefully and then decide if the current article's wording is reasonable. I would be more than happy to consider other suggested wordings that properly and neutrally reflect the sources that we have. Thanks, Crum375 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have spelled things out more than once very clearly. The points I make, Crum, you do not actually address. Your version quotes that:

It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible.

and

In separate hearings the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal held in December 2003 and ruled upon in May 2004 in Auckland, it found Gorringe guilty of malpractice in the death of an earlier patient, and concluded that Gorringe's reliance on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death.

What's not clear? to the exclusion of conventional is there clearly, twice. Your wording of the lead in says something very different. No doubt it pleases anti Omura/BDORT POV, but is neither accurate and is defamatory and potentially damaging. I note that this resistance is very similar to the resistance to change the version you argued and edit warred to keep up for many months that was found to contain clear defamotory material and was deleted.

SV, I ask that the BLP policies (not to mention basic accuracy) be upheld immediately - and that any doubt (not that there is any) be decided to the side of the living people mentioned not a WP editor with certain ideas while disputes about WP:OR and BLP are resolved, immediately.Richardmalter 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I again went over the entry. I see no problem in the lead that states that Gorringe used BDORT on his patients and was found guilty of malpractice. This is a clear summary of the events according to the reliable sources. There is further amplification in the body of the article and full details in the cited sources. Also, as I noted at the top of this thread, BLP does not apply to these issues, IMO. Crum375 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem except that it is inaccurate and defamatory - as I have outlined in great and exact detail Your reply is a general one, not a specific-to-the-point one, which effectively ignores what I actually write. I also note in general your resistance to every single suggestion/proposal I make/made - others including SV, other Mediators/Admin find/editors found ways to implement them straightaway, and even called them "awesome" in one case; which means that you are the exception to them - all good neutral editors.Richardmalter 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, please don't use SlimVirgin's talk page as a replacement for the BDORT talk page. --Philosophus 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, BLP is a very serious issue. Crum et al were party (knowingly or not) to real world harm and defamtory information for many months by edit warring the version they liked, I was the only one that pointed this out and edited aggressively to stop it, which SV finally did at my requestRichardmalter 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

DRV issues

I'll fork the general discussion about deletion review issues over here if you don't mind. Of course, Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review would be an even better place.

My current number one concern about deletion review is that it is being used more than I'm comfortable with to contest keep (and equivalent) closures of AFD. Sometimes they feel like claims that a closure was clearly wrong, and it makes sense to leave DRV as a venue for discussing that. But sometimes these reviews feel like forum shopping, which shouldn't be allowed. Mostly both groups make claims that the AFD closing admin allowed the numbers in the discussion to override policy and guidelines. I end up with just my own gut feel to classify the cases, and that isn't great. I think deletion review should never do more than relist these unless the closing admin agrees that they got the close wrong.

I understand your concern about needing a consensus to keep something deleted at deletion review. Not to say I agree with it, but I do understand it. Part of why I don't agree with it is that Misplaced Pages's normal and preferred decision model is consensus, so I had no objection to swapping DRV from vote to consensus. As a deletion review regular, I quite certain we haven't seen anything that has bounced AFD-DRV-AFD-DRV-AFD. I know that AFD-DRV-AFD is a very common pattern, but even there the usual result of the second AFD is keep (or merge, or no consensus). I can't recollect any AFD-DRV-AFD-DRV cases, but we've probably had one or two that died there.

Another common pattern, but not a problem at all, is AFD-DRV-DRV-DRV-DRV... Well, ok, it wastes time and energy, but not much; the second and later deletion reviews usually get short shrift until someone actually writes a new article in user space. We did have one of those recently, on the pattern AFD-DRV-DRV-userspace-DRV-article... but since that got us a total rewrite ineligible for G4, I consider that a deletion review success.

Having thought about the statistics, my current mental image for the function of DRV is the backup safety valve on a pressure cooker. The primary safety valve is discussion with the admin that acted. Most of the time, we aren't used - less than 2 in 1000 deletions during December got brought to us. Most of the time, we turn requests down (the 30%-33% overturn rate). Our actual overturn rate for December was about 5 in 10,000 deletions

I also believe that those statistics show that the normal functioning of our other deletion processes (speedy, prod, XfD) is quite healthy. If there was a major problem with them, deletion review would get more cases opened. I know I couldn't really handle a doubling of deletion review volume without looking at a much lower fraction of reviews. I look into at least 80% of them, though opine on fewer. GRBerry 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

see this

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3361434,00.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359780967&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Zeq 08:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol at it again

please see these articles: Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan and Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami. I'm loosing the energy to keep myself involved with his false references, and lack of civility (see his last comment in discussion page in HT). Aaliyah Stevens 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can't article editing be temporarily restricted to people with usernames? --Jagz 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals are always a problem with the main page FA. I knew this would happen. Some feel like you and I that the mp FA should be protected, but others, lead by Raul654, do not feel so. There have been several debates about it. I always we should have to waste our time fighting the vandals, that it should be protected, but of course, no one cares about that, they think the vandals should be free to waste our time.Rlevse 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After Eagle Scout went on the main page, I observed the next few main page articles. I guess I just needed to vent a bit, so I wrote User:Gadget850/MainPage. My experience is that if you convince an admin to semi-protect the page, another admin will come along and unprotect it and note Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. More time and effort by all valid editors is spent fighting them than good is gained. New editors can simply move off the mainpage article to edit, it simply wouldn't be that big a deal. Rlevse 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversed vandalism on 06FEB2007, 12:37 EST I understand not what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to confuse me! 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is we shouldn't have to fight vandals. Wiki should not allow them, wiki is too nice to them, everyone should have a verified account, etc. Thanks for fighting these scum.Rlevse 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse has a point, but if we block the main page from new editors then it could drive away new editors, since that is the first page they see. And I have seen a few cases of new editors reverting the vandalism they see, always a good thing. But yes, it is a hassle, thankfully lots of people have it on their watch page. Darthgriz 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, how many of us had our first exposure to wiki via the mp fa? Few I suspect. Most people I know got to it by looking up info for school assignements, google hits on a topic of interest (my case), etc.Rlevse 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping we implement the German solution soon . --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention someone vandalizes and then a new person sees vulgar stuff of the mp fa...I'll believe the German solution here when I see. This issue is one reason Citizendium has been started, where accounts are required.Rlevse 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on vandalism is this: if a featured article is being vandalized repeatedly, it makes WikiPedia look bad. Case in point, when I first went to this article (after seeing it featured on the front page), I discovered that it will full of link spam. Had I been a first time visitor, I would have been put off by what I assumed was a lack of attention to the article. I'm just sayin'. --Douglas Muth 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the point is Misplaced Pages is for everybody to edit, if the first thing you see when you click on the page to edit and you can't it defeats the purpose. Although, I hate vandalism just as much as the rest of us (especially personal attacks.) Then again, if they can semi-protect my userpage to stop vandalism, sometimes I wonder why they can't protect the main page. So I guess I just see both sides of the issue. Darthgriz 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Thanks for either listening to my request, or coming to the same conclusion as me. Either way, gracefully done. --Dweller 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And from me too. Although I registered the WP:3RR violation, I don't want to see anyone blocked. Thanks for your help. The Rambling Man 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Semi-protect

Thank you for semi-protecting Thurgood Marshall as I had requested. This page has had vandalism problems for quite some time.  :) --Eastlaw 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but...

...with all respect, I feel I must call you on this one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A scatologically-infamous thank you

SlimVirgin, I want to thank you for being so reasonable and fair at WP:AN/3RR. It's rather depressing to be accused of disruption and of intentionally stopping short of four reverts so that I could report Briantist, when I had asked for advice, had made only one revert at the time of his fourth, offered him a chance to self revert, was told in response that he doesn't force people to look at poo, and only reverted (my second time) and reported him after that, then didn't revert again for almost 24 hours, and didn't violate the rule at any stage. It's also confusing (to me at least) that administrators seem to disagree. I've been looking at various policy pages, and feel that I have a good understanding of NPOV, NOR, and VER. I felt, until this experience, that I had a good understanding of 3RR also, and understood that while vandalism is an exception, you can't get round it by calling an edit you don't like "vandalism". I'm don't feel that I've fully grasped BLP, though, and I think I'll need to read it a few more times. I'm just a bit stunned that an administrator doesn't see anything problematic about starting an article about a living nutritionist with "Scatologically infamous Gillian McKeith", and thinks that I was "guilty of disruption" for taking it out even though I respected the 3R rule. I had actually taken AN/3RR off my watchlist, but in a moment of weakness I looked again, unwisely, perhaps! This hasn't been a very pleasant experience. Anyway, I generally bounce back quite quickly, so I'll sleep on this, and then get back to editing. If you ever think I am being disruptive, feel free to tell me. Thanks again. ElinorD 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Random condescending note

Normally I try and ignore your condescending, incomprehensible posts, but since you are again accusing me of violating WP:3RR I feel it's appropriate to respond. As of your last comment, I had not referred to anyone as a vandal - unless you are thinking of Cs, who has been told to stop vandalizing Misplaced Pages by three different users. If you were thinking of Aaliyah Stevens then I would point out that I have not referred to him as a vandal for a while as I have not had the chance. Fortunately Zora and RuneX2 have been quite busy undoing AS's vandalism, so I have not had to. Since you thought it was appropriate to point me to WP:WTA, I will go ahead and point out, again, the explanation on Category:Designated terrorist organizations. I would assume this trumps anything on WTA as this is terror-specific. KazakhPol 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)