POV pushing in Oom Yung Doe article

Hi all.

User:Cjim63 has been pushing a negative POV in the Oom Yung Doe article for quite some time; he's used grossly misleading summaries of genuine facts, made up facts, falsified sources, and refused efforts at meditation and other conflict resolution (and now more or less refuses to take part in discussion on the talk page). Most recently, he made this edit, adding some valid information about a new lawsuit against the school, but also adding several dishonest statements, for example:

In 1989, Pam Zekman produced a series for the local Chicago area WBBM-TV station alleging misconduct by the school, much of it shockingly criminal (including violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder). Controversies continued in this area continued with charges brought against Kim in 1989 by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and Kim's conviction in 1995, eventually leading to the shutdown of schools in that area (continuing to this day).

The actual fact of the matter (which the current state of the article reflects) is that Pam Zekman's report was largely untrue, no charges were ever filed for the criminal offenses she alleged, the Attorney General's 1989 case (for financial misconduct) ended with a settlement of a few thousand dollars, and John C. Kim's conviction and the shutdown of the schools was based on a later charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Cjim63's summary, though, leaves any sensible reader with the impression that the much more serious allegations were demonstrated in court and led to the shutdown of the schools.

Diffs for some other random similar misconduct (I have more, but this post is already going to be longer than usual):

• Here Cjim63 adds a citation to "POWERLines Chicago Magazine" to the statement "In fact, the effectiveness and credibility of the Oom Yung Doe style and its senior members are often viewed as highly suspect by other members of the martial arts community." Upon further discussion, it developed that the cited article was unlikely to exist at all, and Cjim63 made no attempt to defend its existence. The statement was removed (after several reverted attempts).
• Here Cjim63 describes a former instructor who had "recently left the organization" who was murdered. When more information was added to the article (that he had left the school seven years earlier, and had been involved in the use and sale of cocaine at the time of his demise), Cjim63 added the statement that "there had been communications between Ludden and Oom Yung Doe instructors just prior to his disappearance." Attempts (1 2) to determine the exact source behind this statement failed, and eventually the entire section was removed, as no one could make a convincing argument that it had anything to do with the school.

Cjim63 is a member of what is effectively a hate group about Oom Yung Doe (which they call "Moo") -- here he is replying to someone who talks about "fat lil' effeminate Kim" and requests that Misplaced Pages be updated. There are other choice quotes in the thread ("typical Moo cowards, probably practising Moo-meditations for penis growth", "truly disgusting vermin"), but in general the group hates the school, believes several incorrect things about the school, and wants to spread the "information" they believe (including posting it to Misplaced Pages). His Misplaced Pages account seems to be an SPA.

What can I do about this? So far I've simply been discussing on the talk page, reverting things that are inappropriate, looking up sources when they don't seem likely to match the cited statements, and suchlike, but that's now been going on for years. Because of what seems like a lack of good faith (refusal to discuss, dishonest sourcing, misleading summaries, and some edit warring), it's also frequently more difficult than it needs to be (e.g. when I track down a source and find that it doesn't exist or doesn't say anything remotely related to what's claimed). I'm not sure if WQA is the right place for this, but it seems to me that blatant, repeated dishonesty like this obviously crosses some sort of line. What's my next step beyond reverting inappropriate things and attempting without success to open discussion?

Subverdor (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience these sorts of problems are very difficult when there is only one editor on each side. There are behavior issues here, but fundamentally this is a disagreement about facts and sources. When disagreements of this type are one-versus-one, they are usually intractable. The only solution that works is for more editors to get involved -- and even that only works if they all come down in support of one side. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So I should recruit a bunch of other Oom Yung Doe people to join WP and get involved in the discussion? :-)

I'm joking, I'm joking, I really am one hundred per cent joking. I've actually asked other people not to get involved because I don't think it would add anything to just increase the volume of what I'm saying by having some other people saying it too.

Partly getting other (neutral) parties involved is what I'm asking for here. If I could get some other eyes to say "No, you're deluded, Cjim63 is just trying to present the truth and you're browbeating him for it" or "Yes, this is very dishonest of him and he shouldn't be doing it" it would make things easier. The thing is that it's very hard to discuss facts and sources when one side isn't presenting things honestly. Am I really obligated to indefinitely keep looking up sources, finding that they don't back up the cited statements, having Cjim63 enter radio silence when confronted with this, and eventually removing the dubious statements myself?

Subverdor (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't touch a martial-arts-school-related dispute with a 10 foot katana; I suspect that many other people feel the same way. You might have better luck at WP:BLPN. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, people tend to have strong opinions -- let me tell you, discussing what was going to go into the "Quality of Training" section (which does still exist in the article for some reason) was a lot of fun. It's like having a sports team article with an "Are they a good team?" section.  :-)

Anyway, thanks for your input. Subverdor (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be more of an article content issue, perhaps with a user engaged in inappropriate edits, then one of personal attacks mandating use of this page. Figureofnine (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The content issues are not terribly difficult to solve -- generally Cjim63 doesn't attempt to dig in his heels on really absurd changes any more (though there's been a problem with that in the past). However, he's still around making attempts to slant the article every once in a while, and it seems transparent to me that he's planning to continue this indefinitely (with the apparent knowledge that the way he's presenting things in the article is dishonest). I would point to WP:PUSH: "Accounts which use Misplaced Pages for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator." He's certainly engaged in several of the behaviors listed in that article:

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. (Special:Contributions/Cjim63)
• They attempt to water down language (diff)
• They revert war over such edits.
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. (diff)

Subverdor (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe bringing this issue here tends to present my conduct and edits in an unfair light. I would invite anyone who is interested in considering my character to inspect my edits and the way in which I have related to other editors on the archives of the Oom Yung Doe talk page. Indeed I do have a different opinion from Subverdor. However, I have done my best to hold myself to a high standard. On the other hand, I believe the WP:PUSH could be used to describe subverdor's conduct as well as mine (note his/her edit history and first edits) all in order to present a somewhat dubious organization under the very best possible light.Cjim63 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to bring more drama, but here is the response to subverdor I put on the Oom Yung Doe talk page. I don't know if 100% of it will make sense, but I suppose it is relevant.

Subverdor, I don't like going through protracted debates with you because I feel it results in lots of drama and less in the way of results. I believe you use wikipedia policy as much as possible to get your way and are willing to dedicate more time and effort to this sort of drama than I am interested in investing.

How about if I ask a few questions?

• Why is the Robert Ludden material removed? I know your reasons that you stated before, but I don't think those reasons are any good. The material is well sourced. Many, many sources say that the schools were being investigated because of a possible link with his death. So why isn't it there?
• I haven't had a problem with removing several items from the article that are negative that aren't sourced as well because I am OK with the negative aspects of OYD being held to the highest standard. So why is it OK for so many "non-primary source needed" sources on the article? What proof is there, for example, that OYD actually teaches Ju Jitsu, Hapkido, Kong Su, etc.? I suspect that many ju jitsu practitioners would not agree that the material being taught is very similar.
• When I and other editors have reverted vandalism, why do you refer to it as "edit warring"? Note your own statement on SamIamOnFire's page here. There was no reason for either myself or Jmcw37 to view these edits as anything other than vandalism. Indeed, while I am sort of OK with the removal of this material since nothing came of it, it was very well sourced.
• Why do you point to WP:PUSH when a brief look at your edit history suggests that barring a little dabbling in other pages that you are a prime example of that very issue?
• Why do you go to wiki etiquette when I make well sourced edits? Note that most of the supposed POV edits that you had a problem with are material that you originally wrote yourself cut and pasted.
• Why do we make authoritative statements like "students describe substantial benefits including self-defense skills, mental and physical health, and improvements in conditions such as asthma and diabetes." when only some students say that while others cite the damage it has done to their bodies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyzfckRW8Ck
• Since when has an unnamed source, referenced by Jennifer Vogel saying the following: "Students' say-and even the school's critic's admit-the Chung Moo program is rigorous, and that it includes some valuable martial arts skills. "I'm paying $4,800 to get to black belt," says first-year student Chris Newcombe. "That's twice what other school charge. But what they teach there is 10 times more than what they teach at other schools." been an authoritative statement on the rigor of training?
• Why did you assume that I was making edits in bad faith (ie making up information) with regard to court records and legal documents? I recall that you got after me quite a bit until I posted them on wikipedia but felt no obligation to obtain them yourself.

In summary, I am afraid that it is the wikidrama that makes me less interested in having these sorts of long discussions and not because I am not interested in discussing my views with others. I suggest that it is wikidrama because even though I have written this long piece, and read the newest wiki etiquette alert you put out, I don't think the article will be improved.Cjim63 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Timtrent

Recently, there was an article that was nominated for deletion. The article was deleted. As I was trying to improve the article. I made a number of relevant redirects and wikilinked other articles to the article that had been AfD'd.

As I said before, the article was deleted in July. However, User:Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) is now hounding me on my talk page, and has in fact issued a shot across the bow and threatened me for a perceived offense. Mind you, these threats came weeks after the article was deleted.

I really don't think I did anything wrong. I've asked Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle to stop bothering me 2x, but this seems to egg him on. I'm asking a neutral party to intervene. Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You asked him to leave your talk page on 4 August here, to which he quickly responded. Nearly nine full days later, you responded. Now this report; three days later yet. Are you seeking a block of User:Timtrent for hounding? What should be done here? Doc9871 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like him to stop posting to my page insisting that I've done something wrong. I'd also like him to stop threatening me. Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

None of Timtrent's posts were incivil and none amount to anything even close to wikihounding. WP:WQA is the wrong venue for bringing these kinds of content dispute complaints. If you feel that an admin action is required, you should have reported it at WP:ANI, not here (although in the case of your particular complaint I would advise against it). Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will let my contributions record and that of the complaining editor stand for themselves. I have no interest in this matter and will take no further part in it. If the complaining editor behaves in what I view as a disruptive manner in the future I will take similar actions again without hesitation. I see this very much as Lady Macbeth. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. So what happened here is as far as I can see:

1. Philly jawn made incorrect redirects to an article that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
2. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle reverted these, and explained that it was incorrect on Philly jawns talk page.
3. Philly jawn seems to not understand that this was wrong.
4. Timtrent says he is going to report it if it happens again.
5. Philly jawn tries to preempt this by reporting Timtrent instead.

What Timtrent did wrong: You didn't need to bring up vandalism immediately. You said you treated it as good faith edits. Then you should explain what was wrong with the edits. What you are doing now is saying that you treat it as good faith edits, but your comment clearly shows that you don't actually believe it to be. The comments was unnecessarily confrontational.

What Philly jawn did wrong: 1. Redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. 2. Reporting Timtrent when he has done nothing wrong.

I can't see that there is any outside action needed here. Timtrent: Be nice. Philly jawn: Your article was rightfully deleted. Accept it and go on with contributing to Misplaced Pages in better ways. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

With one exception, I agree with OpenFuture. The one exception is that Philly jawn did nothing wrong in reporting Timtrent to Wikiquette alerts. Any User is encouraged to report any action that he or she considers is in breach of Misplaced Pages's code of etiquette. If that User is reporting an action that is not a breach of etiquette the WQA community will point this out, hopefully with an explanation of why it is not a breach of etiquette. Conversely, if that User is reporting an action that is genuinely a breach of etiquette the WQA community will do what it can to educate the offender and provide the User with support and encouragement to continue contributing to the encyclopedia.

Philly jawn was genuinely offended by some of Timtrent's actions, for the reasons given above by OpenFuture. It is much better that Philly jawn brought his complaint to WQA, rather than taking direct action against the offender as some Users do. Misplaced Pages is a learning process for all of us, all the time. Hopefully both Philly jawn and Timtrent have learnt a little by this exercise. Dolphin (t) 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, as a point of information. At the time that I made the redirects, the articles existed. What bothered me was timtrents characterization that I was being disruptive or acting in bad faith. Also, after i made declaritive staements that I wanted to be left alone, I was still harassed. That attitude continued here. Philly jawn (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

user:Kintetsubuffalo is once again bullying a newbie, shortly after a discussion on this page was concluded with a notice to Kintetsubuffalo to stop biting newbies. See the recent exchanges between him (or her?) and an anonymous editor at user talk:Kintetsubuffalo. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean User:98.82.1.253 That IP is obviously not a newbie, but well aware of Misplaced Pages rules (and battle prone). However, I can see no reason for the 3RR warning. But no newbie bullying happened. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture is correct about me not being a newbie; I have been editing for over two years (I have a dynamic IP, which is why Michael Hardy thought I was a newbie, I suppose). But yes, User:Kintetsubuffalo was behaving in a bullying manner, issuing completely unwarranted warnings (I actually had zero reverts to an article, and he issued me a 3RR warning!). and, IMHO has demonstrated that he is something of an ass he appears unaware of the definition of the word "revert". 98.82.1.253 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of reversions, but I'd suggest that you go back and delete the last word of your post here. It's not good form to attack a person in an anti-attack forum. Figureofnine (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no bullying, just an incorrect 3RR warning. I can see an uncivil and aggressive attitude from the IP. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will concur that "bullying" is possibly not the best word to use. I won't take a gander as to what would be better, just let's say that his untoward behaviour directed at me was not appropriate. But what of my behaviour?

Incivility and aggression are, in the normal course of life, considered a fairly natural response to being maligned without cause. In courts of law, when John punches Dave and Dave hits back, John is the one who bears the brunt of the blame for the situation. So I'm a bit hostile to the person who falsely accuses me of edit warring--which as we know is near the top of any list of Misplaced Pages misbehaviour--why should I be the one lectured? Has anyone with authority posted anything to Kinetsbuffalo asking him to be more cautious in making accusations? Such a post would have sent the message to me that there is some justice to be had, which would have immediately lowered my temperature. 98.82.1.253 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maligned". :-) The correct response to being incorrectly warned for a 3RR violation is. "You are mistaken. I have not reverted anything on that article". There has been no injustice against you whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone did recently post to Kintetsubuffalo's page about Kintetsubuffalo's recent newbie-biting. Kintetsubuffalo is habitually rude, and has made no secret of his intention to continue on that course. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's a longstanding problematic behavior you might want to consider an RFC. But make sure that at least two users have tried to resolve the problems in a serious and courteous manner first. For borderline cases the best thing is to simply ignore it. But bringing it up again and again here, especially when it's incorrect as in this case, is not going to improve anything, as it just makes it look like you are the problem. In this case there was no newbie and no bullying. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You say it's incorrect in this case. The part that was incorrect is that the IP is a newbie. But certainly what Kintetsubuffalo did was bullying, boorishness, and cowardice. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your denial. What happened was that someone made a false accusation and then turned around and ran away in panic before his accuser replied. That's what it amounts to when Kintetsubuffalo, after making an accusation, deletes the accused's defense with an edit summary pointedly expressing contempt or saying it's an undue demand on his time to take notice of such things. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullying? No, to my mind that requires a repeated action. The only one repeating anything was the IP, who appeared to be attempting to provoke a response. Cowardice? That is patently impossible to say; none of us can read the mind of another, and while "cowardice" is a possibility, there are other equally likely explanations for Kintetsbuffalo's actions. Boorishness? Well, that, simply put, is a subjective term. It's not a term that I use, but I would say, yes, if one acknowledges that it is subjective, it might be accurate to call Kintetsbuffalo's actions "boorish". To which I say, "So what?" The IP went on the record stating that he/she is not a newbie, and so again, so what?. If Kintetsbuffalo is a boor, but contributes to the encyclopedia in an otherwise positive way, he can call me whatever he wants, and my skin is thick enough to take it. The only exception I would make to this would be to say that newbies--true newbies--should be treated with kid gloves. But that didn't apply here. So why don't you drop your anti-Kintetsbuffalo campaign and spend your time helping to build a better encyclopedia? Just a thought. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I know of no definition of "bullying" that requires repetition. To attack someone and then run away in panic is bullying and is cowardice. As for building a better encyclopedia, very few Wikipedians have done more of that than I have. You have not; Kintetsubuffalo has not; the other discussants here have not. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And must I remind people that boorishness is something Misplaced Pages has a policy against. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To attack someone - Attack? At the same time you have called him a coward, and 98.82.1.253 have told HuskyHuskie to go screw himself. It's pretty obvious who are making the attacks here. If you want Kintetsubuffalo to improve his behavior, the first thing to do is to make sure you behave better than him, and at the moment neither of you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

User:Paul Siebert is continuing vandalize the article GULAG with a purpose to promote the point of view of a group of scholars on a subject what is very controversial. He threated users , mocked and harassed them. Without having any level of knowledge of the subject he deletes all parts of the article what he does not like.Celasson (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Celasson, a content dispute is not vandalism; please don't misuse the term. You need to provide evidence of the "mocked" and "harassed" as I have not found it so far. Both you and Paul Siebert appear to be edit-warring and both will be blocked if you continue engaging in this behavior. Resolve your issues by discussing them on the talk page - not edit-warring with one another. You should also notify Paul Siebert about this complaint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Siebert known for his highly developed form of civil discourse? Without diffs, these accusations are difficult to believe. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified... Doc9871 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume the first act of "vandalism" was this: "Reverted good faith edits by Celasson; The article devores zero attention to controversial nature of Getty's writings, so this phrase is irrelevant to the lede." A discussion follows on the talkpage, during which Celasson and Paul Siebert revert each other several times over the course of a few days.

• As Ncmvocalist notes, none of this constitutes vandalism. It is a content dispute, with edit warring thrown in. Insufficient edit warring, to my mind, to justify blocks at this stage, but I would warn both parties to stop.
• Paul Siebert uses edit summaries without fail, including this edit, in which they explain what vandalism is and isn't, and this edit in which they direct Celasson to the talkpage.
• The initial revert ('the first act of "vandalism"') by Paul Siebert which kicked this off appears reasonable: the lead section should summarise the article and the article makes no mention of any controversy surround Getty's writings in this field (perhaps it should - I don't know - but until it does the lead should not "summarise" something that does not exist in the article-proper).

TFOWR 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it should because Paul Sibert waited a long time and when all editors were gone begun to vandalize the article

] here

] here

]here

] here

The thing is that authors whom he holds for the first instance authority are kind of GULAG deniers and describe things which have never exist. And I discussed with him a lot and require any evidence but he refused. My curiosity made him made. That all. Of course the best solution to write about that like 'The numbers are disputed' etc. But he decided to vandalize article to keep his lies alive.Celasson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. Although the Celasson's behaviour is highly uncivil (for example, he accused me several times in editing WP for money here and here ) and is against WP policy (for instance, he refused to accept a good quality secondary source published in American Historical Review, which had been wetted by a scientific community under a pretext that the authors are liars , or "fools and charlatans"; he ignores the fact that the data from the source he dislikes are supported by other reputable scholars , and proposes to rely on memoirs, i.e. on primary sources instead; he also put forward a very strange thesis , namely that WP is a democracy, whereas, according to the policy, it is not). My numerous attempts to urge him to resolve the dispute via WP:RSN or WP:RFC have been fully ignored by him. That demonstrates that Celasson deeply misunderstands how WP works. However, taking into account that I have some reasons to suspect that some members of Celasson family were among GULAG survivors I can understand his emotions. I do not think any sanctions against Celasson are desirable in this situation. I believe it would be better if someone (not me, because Celasson genuinely believes that I am a devil's deputy) explained him some basic rules about the sources and ways for conflict resolution.
Thank you in advance,
Sincerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert. Everything that you need to understand, that we live in a free world where people respect opinions of others and don't lie so how it probably you got to use in Russia.] I asked you a couple of questions which remained without answers. And it is not the way to have a discussion. When I accused you to work for money? I asked you if you are paid for that what you are doing here day and night and confirmed that I am a volunteer. But you was not cooperative and I still suppose that you are beeing paid. You are seating an the article day and night and people have no time watch what from their contributions you have deleted because you was feel like this not comply with your godesses ZRG. And the ethic issues related to this article require bun user Paul Siebert from the editing of this article on the base his ethic illiteracy and the insulting of the memory of the deceased.Celasson (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read the discussion more carefully.If there are more than one opinion that should be represented in the article.Paul Siebert has a totalitarian 'weltanschauung' and is not able accept opinions of other people.Why his nick name linked to Nikolai Ivanovich Kuznetsov alias Paul Siebert, a soviet spy and assassin? I understand why, because he is a true 'soviet' who does not recognize neither freedom of speach nor rights of other humans and of course is not ready to compromise.

Why do you assume that I will accuse somebody without having evidences? Of course I have them. 1.He threated user Biophys to disclose his identity ( probably initiate against user Biophus some repressions):

It was easy to combine three facts: your nick, your edits of articles devoted to membrane proteins, sodium channels or molecular mechanics, and your familiarity with who Ovchinnikov was. With regards to my vision or your motives, I am glad that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (User talk:Paul Siebert#top|talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are in Russia a move toward to deny Stalin's crimes and persecute historians.Mikhail Suprun I tried to discuss with him. He never answers any question asked and suppose to know any WP Policy better than anybody else, but if you begin discuss details he refuses to answer.

Further examples:

1.however, nobody dispute validity of Zemskov's data. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That nobody dares to dispute Zemskov's because this data was published in The American Historical Review, there were no explanations why. He intentionally push a point of view of a group of scientists and so violate WP:NPOV

2.User Biphus states:

Sure, I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others. Conquest and Figes wrote a lot about repressions in general, but not that much about Gulag. And remember that Gulag Archipelago by Solzenitsyn is non-fiction.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert answer: Hmmm... "Do not read Soviet newspapers before a lunch..." (C) Bulgakov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is a proper way to have a dispute?

3. My statement:

I don't find good the idea that in this article will be used some works from communists or pro-communists authors . It is disrespectful of the victims.--Celasson (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And, please, remember, that, in addition to neutrality other policies exist, namely, verifiability and no original research. Re assume good faith, "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert openly mocks victims of the Stalin's crimes. And moreover he is using for that the quote from the Bible! Stalin's persecutions against Christian can be compared with such ones in Antique Rome. And WP:ETIQUETTE is very clear : common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Misplaced Pages is kept permanently, even if it is not visible. Celasson (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me leave most of that uncommented. However, as far as the last Celasson's post concerns another user (Biophys) I need to make some clarification, namely, to provide a more extended quote from my talk page archive these words were taken from (this is a part of the discussion of the notorious EEML case on my talk page):

the quote begins

Paul, you apparently misunderstood my previous comment. No, I asked the question about your nick only because I wanted to ask the question (no one else asked me in emails or elsewhere to do that), and the question was innocent. And no one tried to out you. Of course, I made a kind of opposite claim in emails: that you know who I am in real life because you pointedly described me in WP space the building where I worked in Moscow, but this is something different Biophys (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It was easy to combine three facts: your nick, your edits of articles devoted to membrane proteins, sodium channels or molecular mechanics, and your familiarity with who Ovchinnikov was. With regards to my vision or your motives, I am glad that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things a little bit. I said this, and you replied that. What made me suspicious was the fact that the Institute had very little to do with Biophysics. In fact, none of the labs had word "Biophysics" anywhere in the title. But that's OK. I do not think that anything of that deserved Arbcom attention. We do not need more drama.Biophys (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the quote ends

I have no desire to comment that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Recommend closure. Back in March, Celasson admitted that he was on a personal campaign due to his family members having been sent to the gulag. I feel for him, and I express my sympathy. However, the user has not used the talk page or article in a constructive manner and his recent actions look like harassment. I think a topic ban should be discussed on ANI if things do not improve. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; none of the diffs provided show cases of either incivility or vandalism by User:Paul Siebert. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:LoveMonkey at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences

There has been an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences between Esoglou (talk · contribs) and LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) which seems to have degenerated into prolonged incivility (see the talk page). The questionable comments are coming mostly from LoveMonkey — less so from Esoglou (whose questionable remarks seem to be more in the nature of defensive responses). The article's revision history suggests a continuing effort by LoveMonkey to WP:OWN the page.

I am not an expert on this subject matter and am hesitant to try to take sides on the content dispute, but the overall tone of the debate appears very unhealthy. Attempts to get the two parties to change their behaviour, and/or to get additional editors involved in this or related pages, have so far been in vain. I tried here, but my effort was quickly rebuffed. I think it's appropriate to get someone else involved, to guide this issue toward a resolution, and/or (if necessary) to confirm if my reading of the issue so far is on the mark or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably also be helpful here to review the editing and talk history of East–West Schism, especially during June 2010. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey claims that Esoglou will not discuss. Yet when Esoglou answers and proposes new reformulations, LoveMonkeys response is only that Esoglou edit wars. That's not a constructive path forward. I'd suggest that they both should agree to not edit the article until the have reached an agreement on the change, and failing that a protection of the article (maybe 72hrs) to force LoveMonkey and Esoglou to discuss the issues and reach a consensus instead of edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly and happily accept a no-edit agreement, such as I proposed with regard to East–West Schism. May I be permitted to remark that I have not been edit-warring: this is one example of a long-drawn-out and hitherto fruitless discussion that I have entered into instead of edit-warring. What LoveMonkey called a revert by me was an early attempt to put forward a revised text that might be more acceptable to him. The straight reverts (two) were done by him. Almost any edit by me that touches a LoveMonkey text LoveMonkey calls edit-warring. His own reverting is never edit-warring, in his judgment. Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not a cut-and-dried matter of disruption or vandalism, BTW. It appears to me that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey are making what each one believes is a good-faith effort to improve this article (and related articles). But the end result is that these two cannot agree, neither one accepts the other's good faith any more, and LoveMonkey seems (at least on the surface) to be dominating the argument (again, see the revision history and note that the overwhelming majority of edits have been coming from LoveMonkey).

This article desperately needs input from more people who are familiar with the subject, and who are prepared to evaluate the sources and discuss them in as dispassionate a manner as possible. As long as one or two editors are perceived as trying to WP:OWN the article, though, I'm not sure how eager others may be to enter the fray. I would be willing to try to get up to speed on the topic and contribute, but I don't think I can be an effective mediator here, since LoveMonkey has already indicated that he/she doesn't consider me to be neutral. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've previously been involved with this, through protecting (I think...) East–West Schism. I appreciate that this may already been tried at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, but if not... are there any relevant WikiProjects that could provide on-going input? Failing that, the only thing I can suggest is some sort of voluntary interaction ban adopted by LoveMonkey and Esoglou. Otherwise this is going to end badly, sooner or later. TFOWR 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the talkpage says it's supported by wp:WikiProject Christianity, wp:WikiProject Catholicism, wp:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and wp:WikiProject Theology. Those would seem like good places to start.

LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is, have they been approached before? What happened? I'll have a dig round the other article's talk archives and see if I can work out what happened between then and now. TFOWR 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think all but Theology were tried last time. It is maybe worth trying them again, and also Theology? But LoveMonkey and Esoglou - you two really need to start working more collaboratively - or to avoid each other. Re-reading Talk:East–West Schism was enlightening - non-involved editors there had already noticed this dispute. Richwales, you've seriously been trying to mediate this for two months? That's service above and beyond the call of duty.

Here's what I'd suggest: Lovemonkey and Esoglou - agree a short, neutral text to post at each of the four WikiProjects' talkpages. Invite non-involved editors to join you at the article.

Neither of you should be edit-warring. I'd suggest that nothing should be added to, removed from, or changed in the article until both of you agree. If that means the article stagnates - so be it. Hopefully new editors from WikiProjects will prevent that happening.

Lovemonkey, you need to be more open to Esoglou's proposals. This is a collaborative project and you do need to collaborate.

If you two remain unable to collaborate then things will worsen rapidly. I would see the logical next course of action to be preventing you two from working on the same articles. Ideally this would be done through mutual agreement between the two of you. If that wasn't possible it could be enforced through some sort of ban imposed by the community. Please take this opportunity to work collaboratively. TFOWR 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by user 7mike5000

I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000.

This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this:

• I undid this and in my edit summary pointed toward the talk page of the article (I wrote, "undone -- see talk page"), providing an explanation here:
• 7mike5000 then reverted to his edit, stating "Something called an edit summary/ try using it":
• I then reverted that here: , stating "The edit summary is on the talk page -- I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve."
• 7mike5000 replied then replied to my explanation with this: , a somewhat less-than-civil tirade. Notice the part at the bottom which reads:

Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.

• I then responded with this incensed reply:
• 7mike5000 then responded with some taunting and insults: He also added that I hadn't included an edit summary on my first removal of the text, which I had -- I even preserved a copy of said text for discussion on the talk page. I did not respond.
• 7mike5000, not content with this latest tirade follows up with this: which included more personal attacks. I did not respond.
• 7mike5000 then decides to continue ranting on my talk page, here: .

7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: and replaced it, ironically, with this: .

That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: TeamZissou (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: and here: , though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:

• Bulliform cell (changes here: )
• Plastic Utopia (changes here: )
• Geomys (changes here: )
• George IV Bridge (changes here: )
• Henry E. Dixey (changes here: )
• Norderoog (changes here: )

While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Misplaced Pages. TeamZissou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, not just Wikiquette, and clearly administrator action is needed. That is unusual on WQA, so I think you should move this to AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you have already, in fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Sugar-Baby-Love

I would like to report Sugar-Baby-Love for incivility. Here refuses to address content (which is Warren Farrell) and discusses “sexual libido” and his theory that my name has something to do with sexual libido. Here he does it again . It is a clear attempt to attack me personally instead of discussing his removal of two reliable sources. Here the user questions my motivation, fails to assume good faith, and argues that “we” (that is the user and nobody else) “know what doing” because I included a Merriam Webster Definition and an Allword definition in the article and pointed out that the sentence “Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism” does not confirm and cannot be used as a source for the sentence “The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law”. I believe that behaviour like this is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. Randygeorge (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The above editor has a patten of making dramatic, huge changes of material done in direct opposition to editorial consensus. He or she has been reverted multiple times by several different editors, including myself. I hope that administrators can warm him or her to cease his or her behavior.

"Randy" means, of course, to be horny-- to have sexual libido. I find his or her username to be offensive and upsetting. I have asked him or her, politely, to change his or her name to one that is not so objectionable. This is a separate issue from anything to do with his or her edits and should be treated as a separate issue. Misplaced Pages has a longstanding tradition of users changing their name at the request of other editors. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He or she may not have intended his or her username to be offensive, but that is not relevant to the question of whether or not it is. I believe it is. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy is also a real name in spite of its other meaning. I have a good friend named Randy and see nothing wrong her username. That said I do think that Randygeorge is POV pushing and being disruptive. Half of her edits have had to be fixed by other editors and the other half have been her undoing those editor's efforts. She does not discuss changes to articles on talk pages and does not seek to build consensus with other editors even though all her edits are in controversial gender related articles. She has threatened me with being banned and being uncivil when I disagree with her and is cherry picking inflammatory quotes to include in articles by saying "According to so and so.." and demanding no one remove them because they are verifiable even if they are not reliable or significantly detract from the article for reasons like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:SYN and are contrary to the WP style guidelines (by putting them in the lead-in, etc). Her MO should be clear by even a casual look at her edit history which has led to at least one article being protected for editwarring. Unlike her I am not advocating she be banned (I do not seek to censor people with different opinions) but she does need to change her editing behavior--Cybermud (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On just a cursory glance, it appears to me that these two editors have been engaged in multiple edit wars on related topics and that things are getting a little heated on a personal level. I find nothing offensive about Randygeorge's username, it is a first name and a last name, or a first name and a middle name, it's clearly nothing sexual in nature in context. However, Sugar-Baby-Love appears to have discovered a distaste for the username in the midst of a content dispute, and is using it as a threatening cudgel (tsk tsk). I also find this comment to be over the top "I'm very sick of you making huge changes of material based on nothing but your own personal bigotries." Even if you get annoyed, you need to keep your tongue in check; see WP:CIV.

Randygeorge also seems rather fond of waving sticks around; I randomly selected 3-4 diffs of recent talk page edits and in almost every one of them there's a threat to report someone or another for this or that, which does not foster an environment where people can cooperate on difficult topics.

To sum it up, both folks implicated by this complaint have been intemperate and haven't always conducted themselves properly. The real problem here is your edit warring across multiple articles, which should be resolved through dispute resolution. I recommend you gravitate to one of those options, and try to cool down a little. — e. ripley\ 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The disturbing thing is that these two editors Cybermud and Sugar-Baby-Love miraculously show up at all articles I've ever edited and start reverting my edits. They follow me everywhere I go which is pretty scary. Thank you, E. Ripley, for your comment. Randygeorge (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, George has followed me around. And his spurious allegations about sock-puppetry about me are, in my opinion, a clear form of projection. I very highly suspect that George is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user.

He or she has all the hallmarks of that= (1)Frequent accusations of reporting for behavior, (2)Dramatic changes made against editorial consensus, (3)A refusal to engage with alternate ideas on talk pages, and (4)A narrow, lazer-beam like focus on editing certain articles- which, in George's case, are sexual-related articles.

I believe that a 'CheckUser' test or something similar is in order. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing this user's accusations is usually a waste of time because they are so obviously false but this particular accusation can be addressed really quickly. This should settle who started editing first and who "followed" I won't even address his other accusations because they are even less believable. I hope that every can see how frequently Cybermud joins the edit-warring. Randygeorge (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

George is well aware that Cybermud and I are different users, and I humbly ask him to admit that. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• George has taken this content dispute to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)