User talk:ResearchEditor/archive2

*sigh*
(Note: This section was moved to here on 3/1/08 to make it easier for admins to see the unblock discussions above the unblock request)


 * ''"I don't think I have done anything that was POV-pushing."

* sigh* Endless reverts, AT, for example the SRA list you pushed and the stuff you pushed in other pages, were pov pushing. Just take a good look and see how Rubin had to correct all the mess in your countless pov-pushing edits through the latest months.


 * "POV pushing is working to undermine NPOV on a page. I never wanted to nor intended to do this."

You may not have intended to do it consciously, but that's exactly what de facto you did.


 * "I do not believe that the existence of SRA (defined as ritual abuse in a satanic setting) is an extraordinary claim. The SRA cases list page shows these do exist. Other reliable sources do also. Noblitt's paper could be considered a RS in terms of wikipedia policy. He is an expert in his field and he has published work in reliable sources."

It's not a matter of what you believe, AT. What only matters is that, in Wikipedia, extraordinary claims —such as the conspiracy theories of Satanic abuse that Noblitt seems to endorse— require RSs. How many times have you been told that a self-published text (such as Noblitt's) is not and will never be a RS in the wiki?

—Cesar Tort 05:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In a sense, I think it often takes two to POV push, especially in terms of reversions. (This does not make it right though.) And though I do not believe it is the best way to work on an editing process, I do believe that many of the edits that came about due to Rubin's and my discussions were good ones. And with all due respect to your scholarship, I believe that you have a bias when looking at this issue. I am guilty of POV pushing as defined by MangoJuice. I did not "try to view the whole issue from arm's length, as if you were an outsider who didn't know about the subject" as he states. This made me unintentionally a POV pusher. I believe that we all need to look at ourselves around this issue as I believe that ideally, this is very difficult to achieve perfectly.


 * In reply to your comments on Noblitt's work and his paper, I do not believe that Noblitt makes extraordinary claims. It would be helpful if you could cite the specific claims you have a problem with.


 * In the paper being discussed on SRA talk, on the web at
 * http://www.ra-info.org/library/programming/noblitt.shtml Noblitt concludes: "
 * "Research on allegations of ritual abuse is important and needed because many questions are as yet unresolved among mental health, legal, and law enforcement professionals. Until we can better clarify this difficult and troubling subject, we can continue to expect this area to be rife with problems and bitter contentiousness. We will continue to hear that blameless individuals have been unfairly convicted of charges stemming from ritual abuse allegations, or that innocent children are being returned to abusive households because their outcries are not taken seriously in courts of law."


 * This does not sound like a conspiracy theory or an extraordinary claim. Any statement he does make is backed up by research. You also made a claim about Noblitt's belief about the book "Michelle Remembers," yet I haven't seen you produce a quote that back up your views on Noblitt's belief of the book.


 * I will reply to what you said on the Admin's page. You state that if "this article were restricted to peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, it would be far more skeptical than its present incarnation." I am not sure this is true. I know that some of the references like Michael Aquino, skepdic.com and Fortean Times would disappear and most of the article might disappear. The other problem with your statement is that it doesn't necessarily follow all of the wikipolicy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." As written, this policy also allows for other sources. And I have already previously cited wikipolicy where editors can decide on whether self published sources should be used as RS's.


 * On the SRA page you state "we must restrict the article to sources by sociologists and criminologists." I have never seen a requirement like this anywhere in wikipedia policy. Please quote this if it exists.


 * You also cite masonicinfo.com as a referential critique for Noblitt's book. Yet another editor clearly states: "The glowing review of Noblitt and Perskin's book from the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse was reproduced here last year. I'm concerned that you think that the "Masonic Info" review is worth a dime. The entire piece is ad hominem, scurrilous and consistently misrepresents the views of the authors."


 * Even a relatively skeptical editor on the SRA talk page states: "Checking whether an author accurately represents his professional qualifications is not an ad hominem. (in reply to the Masonicinfo.com article) It appears the book (Noblitt's) was relatively well-reviewed in Psychiatric Services ([8]) as well. I admit that I don't remember exactly what Noblitt and Perskin were being cited for. On the three points it's being cited on currently, it seems reasonable."


 * Cesar Tort states: "Didn't Noblitt revise an edition of Michelle Remembers, or didn't both relate her story as if it were real in Cult and Ritual Abuse? Caution is a must when handling these authors." Neither of these facts are true. IMO, it is preferable to check one's facts before stating them, even on a talk page.


 * Trying as hard as I can to look at the page from arm's length, I would agree with this recent quote by an editor: "The amount of arguments and sources and links...are in direct relation to what some editors demand - it takes ten scientists for a pro, while one wiccan (Aquino) will suffice for a "contra" argument."


 * Recently, there have been two edits made by an IP address that appear to be OR on the SRA page. One adds a statement to a source that it didn't make.


 * I hope that we can all look at our faults and the things we need to work on here. Like user MangoJuice above stated: "the proper way to simply have an opinion is to keep that completely to yourself and try to view the whole issue from arm's length, as if you were an outsider who didn't know about the subject. Start from the information available, think about how to present it neutrally - without bias towards either side of the issue.  Don't advocate your opinion at all, or the opposite opinion, but recognize that they both exist and do the best you can to learn what kind of balance these views are really in, without assuming yours is more popular or more correct." abuse t (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Sorry, but your username and your editing behaviour mark you out as a campaigner for WP:TRUTH. This conflicts with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your edits appear to have caused numerous complaints and to have brought considerably more disruption than benefit. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a policy-based reason to be unblocked. Read up on the blocking policy and argue from there.  WLU (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will try again. abuse t (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done nothing but refer you to policies on a variety of pages, to no good end. What was your policy based rational to disagree with my citations of UNDUE, SYNTH and LIST in response to your reverts to keep the list of articles on satanic ritual abuse?  There was none, just an opinion that they should stay. Just today I cited block.  And the blocking admin cites WP:TRUTH, what is your response to TRUTH that merits your unblocking? WLU (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the pages you refered me to. My main objection to the removal of the section was that it was not fully discussed on the talk page. I offered compromises during this discussion and I believe they were ignored. I wish a true compromise could have been achieved on this section as well as other edits on the page, from all points of view with reliable sources. I believed that I did reply to your citations. I stated that a list of individual cases were important because they were connected to SRA. abuse t (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was discussed at length, there's a section on the current page and a section in one of the archives. 'Not fully discussed on the talk page' is not a policy.  If there is no merit to your points, and I saw little, then there is no reason to compromise.  You compromise if it makes the page better, no-one saw any indication it would improve the page.  Your compromises were ignored because there was no merit found in compromising.  Compromise doesn't mean everyone is happy.  Mere connection to SRA isn't enough, and others have pointed out that having the articles on the page was WP:SYNTH-y.   WLU (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion. But this is a minor matter in the overall scheme of things, since AT has violated WP:NPOV/WP:SYN, WP:V, WP:SOAP and of course is a warrior for WP:TRUTH.  Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy.  Common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.  We don't need people whose reason for being here is to bring The Truth&trade;, especially when said truth conflicts with the mainstream view documented from credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will work harder to justify my edits on the talk page before making any future edits on wikipedia. I will also work harder to justify and achieve consensus around my edits. abuse t (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Use the template unblock-un to submit and request a username change. A bureaucrat will review it, make the change if the new username is OK, and unblock you. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem wasn't the name. The name was just a red flag that showed that the problem was more or less inevitable.  Nobody was surprised that an account called "Abuse Truth" turned out to be a disruptive campaigner for a particular point of view, but your edits would have been just as problematic if your username had been completely innocuous. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, fixating on the name alone is missing the point. I have told you to write for the enemy, you said 'what a good idea' then continued on your way.  You've had your rope, and now you've hung yourself.  The problem is not the name, it's not the civility, it's the constant pushing of a single POV, and I can't see that changing.  Politely replying to points on a talk page then completely ignoring their substance is not how one engages with the community.  WLU (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have stated above that I will change. If you want me to post edits from the position of the other side, I will do this. I have never lied on wikipedia. I will try harder to follow the substance of points on the talk pages. abuse t (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope it is all right to post this here also. I will also post WLU's comments below it, to show that I am trying to post both sides of the issue.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#request_review_of_indef_block


 * [edit] request review of indef block


 * For reference: Abuse truth (talk · contribs) per discussion above. I request the indef block of this user be reviewed and reversed. The block is unfair, was done without warning, without a series of shorter blocks, and does not follow process-based community action in Wikipedia.


 * This is nothing like the extreme disruption that justified the recent blocks of multiple pro-pedohile activist editors without warnings. With the pedophile activists, there was a huge disruption by a group of people that went on for months before several of them eventually were blocked. Even in that situation, there was controversy about the blocks, and it became a matter for ArbCom.


 * This is a totally different situation. User:Abuse truth does not deserve an indef block and I request that the block be reversed.


 * Yes, he/she edits only a certain range of articles, and yes, the user's name implies a certain POV. However, the editor is more civil than most, and brings many references. Sometimes, too many sources perhaps, but that's better than not enough, and in particular his/her editing does not consist of simply re-writing sections without references, and s/he does participate in talk page discussions about the content.


 * Also, and importantly, those articles involved bring out strong POV editing in many editors, and not only among editors, but even in the scientific research and published papers and books there are POV battles including scientists and activists. This is not just about Satanic ritual abuse, but a range of articles relating to Child sexual abuse, including Repressed memory, Recovered memory therapy and others.


 * It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK.


 * I concur with User:WLU, at 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) that more input on the articles from a wider base of editors would be helpful. These are content disputes, perhaps WP:RFC would be a good idea.


 * This block should be lifted. The user was not even warned at all. If someone has a problem with a user, there are processes for that, such as WP:RFC/U that were not followed here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said this, the only real advantage to having AT on any page is the addition of a blatant single side of an argument, at the expense of having to triage sources, review and dig up counter sources. Sure, the page improves, but at the expense of tremendous aggravation. The pages would benefit from knowledgeable editors willing to add both sides of the debate. AT does not do this. WLU (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * abuse t (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this note to indicate that this user correctly copied my note from the AN/I report where I entered it. The discussion is continuing there as well.

I support unblocking this user, who has clearly indicated above that s/he will change approaches, and change user name, and will learn to better cooperate in editing. That's a good response, and a good reason to unblock, especially when the block was the user's first and went straight to indef blocking with no shorter blocks prior to that.

If any problems continue after the unblocking, they can be addressed. There is no emergency here, no detriment to Wikipedia to allow this good faith user to continue editing, and offer the chance for him/her to learn and change approach as s/he promised. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see any indication of future improvement; the user has indicated that s/he will change approaches, but still doesn't indicate s/he knows what s/he did wrong. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do know that I was a campaigner for truth in terms of the POV of my edits. I did not mean to violate this policy of wikipedia. I have agreed to stop doing this and edit from both sides. abuse t (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what you've been doing wrong. "Editing from both sides" would only be correcting only part of your policy and guideline violations.  See CT's section below for some of the questions you'd need to answer before an unblock should be considered.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advice about the block
AT: it's not so much as paying lip service that you will, say, "write for the enemy". I think the real issue is whether or not you understand the issues.


 * Have you comprehended what User:WLU tried to say so many times about the whys of moving the long list to a subpage?


 * I do understand why he suggested this. IMO, it was due to undue weight. But, these cases are only undue weight IMO if the definition of SRA is considered to be one of "a global conspiracy." I cited five sources, several peer reviewed and two skeptical ones (RT and Lanning) where the definitions were quite different. If one sees SRA as "ritual abuse perpetrated in satanic settings" then the argument of undue weight against citing the cases is IMO weaker. I was looking for a compromise of some sort. Jack A Roe toward the end of the discussion IMO suggested a good one, one or two paragraphs about the topic. As it stands right now there is one sentence on the case linked to a page. I believe that one paragraph would be best. This would be an appropriate compromise between all decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)


 * Have you comprehended what is a RS?
 * I have re-read the page on this several times. I know that peer-reviewed sources are the best ones. I believed that Noblitt's paper should be at least considered as an RS, since he has published other reliable sources. Here's a quote from the policy: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  And we do have several IMO non RS sources on the page.  Aquino's book is not a RS, partly because (http://www.phoenixpublishing.com/) is not RS. It is a publisher of Wiccan books. And there have been serious criticisms of skepdic.com on wikipedia.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic.27s_dictionary
 * Also, Fortean Times is questionable. I believed that we had lowered the bar too low to allow some of these sources on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)


 * In one of your last entries you still said you would revert soon. Have you comprehended why this is against policy?
 * I think I mentioned this in regard to the Noblitt paper as RS. I was hoping that a discussion could begin on this paper, where a compromise of some sort could be found, since it appeared that wikipolicy was at variance on this issue, depending on which part of the policy one read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)


 * Have you comprehended that Michelle Remembers is an extreme claim and that a red-flag applies with such claims?
 * The way I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
 * is "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." IMO, this does not apply to the RS's in the MR section because it clearly stated that high quality sources are needed to back exceptional claims, not that we should lower the quality of sources for claims we consider to be weak to contradict them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)


 * Have you comprehended the policy that extreme claims, such as Michelle Remembers, require extraordinary sources?
 * Yes, I do. And I have never wanted wikipedia to state they are true on the pages, unless backed by reliable sources. I've only wanted opinions from reliable sources on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)


 * Have you comprehended why Rubin reverted you many times in different pages, and why his actions were an heroic example of following policy?
 * Rubin and I have disagreed numerous times on policy. I believe that sometimes we interpreted policy according to our opinions and feelings about certain topics. IMO, at times we were both heroic for standing up for our beliefs on what we felt was best for wikipedia and its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)

You were warned recently by both User:Eleland and User:Crotalus horridus. And even after User:WLU wrote "Jesus Christ!" in edit summary because of one of your endless reverts, you said that you'd wait a few days before reverting again...
 * Crotalus and I have disagreed on the definition of SRA most recently. It appears there is no agreed upon definition of SRA in the literature. So accusations of POV violations on this issue by either side would appear to be unsupported.


 * I do not recall receiving any warnings recently from Eleland on the talk page. But we do disagree on certain subjects from time to time. But I have had limited interactions with him. He appears to debate bia more on the page.


 * I have edited with WLU on several pages. We have sometimes worked well together and the result was IMO positive. There are two pages more recently where we have had some disagreements. These were both times (one of these is the SRA cases section in question) where he deleted a lot of data (according to policy) and I was hoping for at least a discussion on these issues. A while ago he gave me half a barnstar for my work on the SRA page. I am hoping that we can continue to work for the benefit of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)

It's no surprise to find that many editors are skeptical about how, if unblocked, will you behave in the future. Patience and time to explain the same policy over and over again to the same editor has a limit.

Why don't you try —if unblocked only to edit different articles— to grasp policy? If you are unblocked to edit different articles, and if at last you follow policy, you may request again a more complete unblock. Think of that scenario as a kind of probation.


 * I have considered doing this. My interests at this point in general are kind of linear. I do believe like Jack A Roe that the block should be removed in full. I see most of the disagreements as primarily content disputes, though the charge of wp:truth is correct. I think that there are different ways to follow policy and different policies one can use and choose to support one's point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuse truth (talk • contribs)

But I am no blocking admin and better stop advising here.

Good luck :)

—Cesar Tort 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to AR, I was blocked due to violations of wp:truth. I have admitted to that and have stated I will change. I will reply to CT's comments in his text above. Hope this is not a violation of talk page guidelines.

-

I want to thank CT for clearly stating the issues and giving me a chance to reply. I hope that what ever happens is for the best of wikipedia. I will quote Jack A Roe: "It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK."

The debates on the talk pages and even the pages themselves appear to be a microcosm of the debate in society at large. It would be great if we can all rise above the negative sides of this debate and use the full arguments presented from all reliable sources to shape a quality page for our readers. I do believe that many of these pages are moving in this direction. I hope to be able to continue to help their further growth. abuse t (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I am unable to reply and defend myself at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents


 * I will defend myself here. I was blocked for wp:truth and not for my belief in a "fringe theory." I have agreed the block for wp:truth is true and have promised to post from both sides of the argument. It is unfair to keep adding charges on to which I need to defend myself against. I believe the block should be lifted.


 * In reply to —Cesar Tort 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He believes that "placing long lists on a main article" is "against policy." I have shown how this is debatable, depending on one's definition of SRA. If SRA is seen as ritual abuse cases in a satanic setting, then these cases at least deserve mention in some form. I have shown above how Noblitt' self published paper may be an RS, since "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Noblitt might be considered an established expert with his number of years in the field and the fact he has worked with many SRA survivors throughout the years. He has also been published by reliable third-party sources.


 * CT also states that Noblitt believes in "the lunacy" of the book Michelle Remember. I have not found a single quote to back this up. If CT has one, please produce it.


 * CT's states that as "he still continues to regard his previous edit wars as "heroic for standing up for our [his and Rubin's] beliefs." After CT asked "why his (Rubin's) actions were an heroic example of following policy?" I stated "IMO, at times we were both heroic for standing up for our beliefs on what we felt was best for wikipedia and its pages." I only mentioned this due to CT's questioning.


 * This is the url for Noblitt's paper: http://www.ra-info.org/library/programming/noblitt.shtml
 * He starts off his paper by stating: Most empirical studies of ritual abuse can be divided into four categories. They are studies of (1) the frequency of ritual abuse disclosures to professionals and their beliefs about such reports; (2) suggestibility, rumor and iatrogenesis as possible explanations for ritual abuse allegations; (3) ritual abuse allegations made by children; and (4) ritual abuse allegations made by adults. He cites numerous RS studies in this paper.


 * In reply to: Guy (Help!) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC) - who blocked me without any warning:


 * He states that "This amounts to "please unblock me because I can state my fringe POV at incredible length without being rude at all"


 * I do not believe that the existence of SRA (cases of ritual abuse in satanic settings) is a fringe theory. I believe there are some SRA cases and the SRA cases list moved to its own page on wikipedia shows this.


 * from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe
 * ""We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."


 * The above has not been proved to be true on the SRA talk page. I and other editors have cited reliable sources that show this not to be the case. The mainstream view in the fields of study does not outright deny the existence of any individual SRA cases.


 * I will apologize for this long list in advance. But it is necessary to show the existence of SRA in some settings.


 * This is from the page that is split off from the main page:






 * In the late 1980s, a number of children at a daycare centre in the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, began disclosing experiences of organised and ritualistic sexual abuse to their parents and the police. Caroline Milburn, "First Child-abuse Claims Were In 1989, Says Police", The Age, 9 March 1992, p4


 * In 1998, Robin Angus Fletcher was jailed for eight years after pleading guilty to the sexual and ritual abuse of two children. Fletcher had extensive involvement in a satanic cult, Fletcher's involvement in a satanic cult is detailed by police files, printed in the chapter "The Satanist" in Vicki Petraitis, "Rockspider, the danger of paedophiles - untold stories", Ormond, Vic. : Hybrid, 1999 and previous convictions for false imprisonment, indecent assault, managing a brothel and living off earnings of prostitution. Geoff Wilkinson, Monsters go free: Pedophiles win legal challenges, Herald Sun, 28 September 2006, p1 Along with his wife, he was found to have used hypnosis and ritualistic abuse to sexually abuse and prostitute two children in the mid-1990s. Whilst in jail, he attempted to have the two children murdered in order to prevent them from testifying against him. Peter Gregory, Witch Jailed For Teen Sex, 5 March 1998, The Age, p9


 * In 2001, the Melbourne diocese of the Catholic Church acknowledged as "substantially true" allegations that a Melbourne priest took part in Satanic ritual abuse in which a number of deaths occurred in the 1960s, and paid compensation to a surviving victim. Gary Hughes, Church pays victim of sex and death rituals: Priest's satanic life, Herald Sun, 26 May 2006


 * In 1999, two journalists from the Sun-Herald claimed to have seen evidence of the ritual abuse of children. They interviewed six mothers whose children had disclosed experiences of SRA and organised abuse in New South Wales. Miranda Wood and martin Chulov, Evil In The Woods, The Sun Herald, 8 August 1999, p 7


 * In the early 1990s, Superior Universal Alignment, an Argentinian-based international cult, was implicated in the ritualistic murders of several children. One of the leaders of the group, Osvaldo Marcineiro, confessed to murdering a number of young children in Satanic rituals, in which the children were tortured, murdered and their body parts cannibalised. Todd Lewan, Satanic Cult Killings Spread Fear in Southern Brazil, The Associated Press, 26 October 1992


 * In 1998, six adults in Emilia-Romagna were arrested with allegations of prostituting their children and the production of child pornography. The children were also reported to be involved in satanic rituals.


 * In 2003, Robin Classen was found guilty of sexually assaulting and torturing three children, as well as exposing them to satanic rituals.


 * In 2007, a state district court jury in Amite voted unanimously Monday to convict Austin "Trey" Bernard III in the rape of his 2-year-old daughter, and 11 of the 12 jurors found him guilty in the rape of a 12-year-old boy. Ten votes were needed to convict. Bernard had pled not guilty, however, he had previously confessed three times, and written about the ritualistic sexual abuse of the children in a detailed 230-page diary supplied to the jury. There are currently six remaining defendants awaiting trial in relation to the case, and they have been accused of organised and ritualistic abuse of three children at Hosanna Church.


 * This is only a partial section of some of the cases listed. This shows that SRA does exist in some areas of the world. Prevalence is a debatable point and more data is needed on this.


 * It appears that the continuation of this block is a way to deny those with a different point of view a voice on wikipedia. This will only weaken wikipedia and its pages.


 * As I have stated previously, interpretations of policy can vary on wikipedia. I request that the block be lifted immediately. I have admitted to the charge of wp:truth which is why the block was installed. And I have promised to change. abuse t (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You were blocked not for the existence of these claims (they are still at List of satanic ritual abuse allegations and Ritualized child abuse) but for being a POV pusher against all consensus and not ceasing after being told several times to stop the disruption. Your inclusion in your appeal of the phrase "continuation of this block is a way to deny those with a different point of view a voice on wikipedia" seems to mean you have missed the point entirely of why you were blocked. –– Lid(Talk) 11:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree - I think he's saying he's promised to behave, so the block should be lifted. I agree he should, if the promise is belivable and it's clear he understand what the right kind of behavior is and what it isn't.  Mango juice talk 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, AT has acknowledge WP:TRUTH over and over and agreed to "change" but since WP:TRUTH is a jokey humorous essay and since he's been nonspecific about how he intends to change, I don't think it's time to answer the request yet. Here's what I would like Abuse truth to answer: (1) What is the difference, in your understanding, between POV pushing and merely having a point of view? (2) What, if anything, do you think you have done in the past that was POV pushing? (3) How will you steer clear of POV pushing in the future? Mango juice talk 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply user LID, I was not blocked for POV pushing and going against consensus. If you look at the talk page, I kept asking for consensus and discussion. I believe I was asked on the talk page once not to revert w/o a warning and at that point I did not put the cases section back in. Instead I restored only a summary paragraph of it looking for a compromise. I was blocked for wp:truth. As stated above it is a humorous essay and I am guilty of taking one side of the debate on the page and not looking hard enough at both sides.


 * In reply to user Mangojuice, I think I have briefly stated that I would change by posting edits and talk page comments from both sides of the issue. I have read
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_pushing
 * and I do not believe I did this. "POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view." I always wanted the articles I worked on to be balanced and show all POVs from reliable sources. I cited NPOV policy many times while editing pages I edited on, to make them IMO more balanced.


 * To answer question Use Mangojuice's questions:


 * (1) I believe that POV pushing is working to undermine wikipedia's NPOV policy - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pov
 * "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."
 * Having a point of view means to believe in one side of an argument, but not to push that point of view to point of POV-pushing, where reliable sources from the other side of the argument are deleted.


 * (2) I don't think I have done anything that was POV-pushing as per the quoted definition above. However I did however promote my point of view more strongly than I should have at times. This is where I am guilty off wp:truth. I should have tried harder to look at both sides of the issues and edited from both sides of it as well.


 * (3) I think the best way to steer clear of POV-pushing is to do what User WLU suggested, edit from the other side of the argument also. This will help me see the other side of the argument better. I have promised to do this.


 * I hope that I have made it clear that I believe that there is a difference between POV pushing and wp:truth. POV pushing is working to undermine NPOV on a page. I never wanted to nor intended to do this. WP:Truth is believing only one side is right to the point of not seeing the other side's point of view clearly enough. Of this I am guilty. And as I stated above, I can change this by editing from the other side of the issue as well.


 * In reply to User Cesar Tort on the Admin's page. He stated that I believe that "in extraordinary claims a self-published text is a RS." I do not believe that the existence of SRA (defined as ritual abuse in a satanic setting) is an extraordinary claim. The SRA cases list page shows these do exist. Other reliable sources do also. I have shown above how Noblitt's paper could be considered a RS in terms of wikipedia policy. He is an expert in his field and he has published work in reliable sources. I compared this to the use of IMO less than reliable sources on the page, like Aquino, Fortean Times and skepdic.com. I am not sure why I keep being accused of something that I have not done here, but I hope that the editors that are missing this point will be able to see this point of view.


 * I am requesting that the block be removed immediately. I have admitted to wp:truth and will change to stop doing this. abuse t (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm going to decline the unblock for now based on this answer, because you seem not to understand what you did wrong and you don't seem to understand what to do different.  Let me take your answers to my questions one at a time.  (1) Yes, POV pushing is working to undermine the neutral point of view that Wikipedia expects in favor of a particular point of view.  However, the proper way to simply have an opinion is to keep that completely to yourself and try to view the whole issue from arm's length, as if you were an outsider who didn't know about the subject.  Start from the information available, think about how to present it neutrally - without bias towards either side of the issue.  Don't advocate your opinion at all, or the opposite opinion, but recognize that they both exist and do the best you can to learn what kind of balance these views are really in, without assuming yours is more popular or more correct.  Your answer suggests that you think "POV pushing" just describes an extreme situation, while pushing your point of view is okay if you just do it gently.  This is false.  (2) You admit, many times, to the "charge of WP:TRUTH."  I blame JzG here for citing that page in your block, because it may have thrown you a bit.  Look at WP:TRUTH -- it has a big purple "humor" banner across the top.  This is not a policy.  But the kind of behavior it talks about is absolutely POV pushing, of the worst and most hard-headed sort.  When you think your opinions are the truth, you can never be reasonable, you can never see the neutral point of view as anything other than a distortion of the truth, and so on.  So all those reverts, the editing with an agenda, all that is based on your point of view and your attempts to make articles more in line with that point of view, regardless of the neutral point of view on the subjects.  (3)  To edit "from both sides of the issue" is a very weak response.  Yes, this would be better than nothing.  However, neutrality is not the same thing as a truce between extremes, so thinking of it as you fight for both sides is really wrong: this would really be POV pushing from both sides, rather than appropriate editing.  I think the problem here is that since you've only edited on articles in this one area you are personally highly interested in, you don't really know how to edit without pushing your views.  It's actually harder to edit appropriately on topics you are emotionally invested in.  However, you've rejected the idea of contributing to other areas.


 * I might be willing to unblock you if you agree to some terms that will restrict your editing more than normal. If you're amenable, I'll let you know what I have in mind.  Mango juice talk 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will reply to User Mangojuice above. I agree with what you state here: "the proper way to simply have an opinion is to keep that completely to yourself and try to view the whole issue from arm's length, as if you were an outsider who didn't know about the subject. Start from the information available, think about how to present it neutrally - without bias towards either side of the issue.  Don't advocate your opinion at all, or the opposite opinion, but recognize that they both exist and do the best you can to learn what kind of balance these views are really in, without assuming yours is more popular or more correct." I hope I can  learn how to do this. I also hope that the other editors on the page will try to do this.


 * I agree with this also: "you think your opinions are the truth, you can never be reasonable, you can never see the neutral point of view as anything other than a distortion of the truth, and so on." I will work harder on this.


 * I agree with what you say in reply to answer (3). You state that "however, you've rejected the idea of contributing to other areas." I don't remember writing this. I am thinking of other areas to contribute to in wikipedia and once I am able to edit again, I will start doing this.


 * I am amenable to hearing your ideas to restricting my editing potential at least temporarily. The length of this could be defined by my progress in the above areas by a neutral editor that knows wikipedia like yourself. My idea is that I would be restricted to two edits per week on the SRA article and no more than one per day. All other articles I would be restricted to three edits per week. Any edits on the SRA page I would first bring up on the talk page. I would like to be able to write to an editor like yourself for remediation if I believe I am being taken advantage of during this probationary period. abuse t (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Please note: this section was moved here 3/3/08 from the bottom of the page to make it easier for admins to find the section written by Admin Mangojuice in reference to the newer unblock request.)


 * Here's what I have in mind. There's an area of interest here - SRA and closely related topics.  For the first 2 weeks, you would be banned from editing any articles in this area of interest, but not banned from the talk pages of those articles.  In addition, you would be put on revert limitation (1 revert per week) and probation (see WP:RESTRICT for the definitions of these) with respect to any articles, talk pages, or other debates in the area of interest until an administrator agrees that these restrictions are no longer necessary.  You'd have to agree to have your name and restrictions listed in a visible way.  As for "being taken advantage of," that fundamentally views the situation as a war or struggle when it should be a cooperative effort.  So basically, you'll have to work within the restrictions.  But yes, your restrictions should not be taken by those you disagree with as a license to edit war.  Mango juice talk 05:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very interested in what you state above. In terms of closely related topics, would this mean any ritual abuse articles or any articles that mention ritual abuse in their text? I would like to be able to use "time served" as part of the two week ban. I am confused about what specifically being put on probation means. Does this mean that my edits and actions in the area of interest would be monitored by an admin like yourself, until the time period is over? Also, if possible I would like a review of the probationary period if possible every two or so weeks. This would help me continue my progress in this area. How would my name and restrictions be listed? I would like all of my edit work to be cooperative. Would I be able to approach an admin or specific wikipage for mediation if needed during this probationary period? One more question, would I still need to change user names or is using abuse t all right? abuse t (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I had a delay in responding. I'm willing to cut the no-article-edits period to 10 days, considering my delay in responding to you.  No one would be specifically monitoring you.  If you  have any questions feel free to ask any admin (not me, though, I'm going to be out of contact for about a week and a half).  As for the review period, there should be no timetables.  I doubt anyone would be willing to lift the probation until at least 3 months, but if you want some input, I suggest you put yourself up for an Editor review, and if that goes well, ask at WP:ANI if your probation can be listed.  In terms of your username, yes, you should change it, several people have acknowledge that as a problem, but I think "User:Abuse t" would be a fine choice and easy for people to adjust to.  Other admins: I am busy these days.  If Abuse t agrees to this, please feel free to unblock, use my username in your unblock reason, and write an appropriate notice for the top of this page.  Thanks!  Mango juice talk 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree to all of the above terms. Thank you for your work on this. abuse t (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
Welcome back.

Please start the process to change your name as soon as possible, and remember to stay by the restrictions you have agreed to. I would recommend you do not archive that discussion with MangoJuice for the time being so that other admins may see why you have been unblocked to prevent misunderstandings. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Old name in userpage
Hi ResearchEditor,

I would recommend that you state in your user page (which is blanked right now) that formerly you edited under the names of "Abuse truth" and "Abuse t".

—Cesar Tort 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi CT,


 * I will ask around and see if this is common practice or required. abuse t (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't normally required, but you're under probation. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The name change is not an issue. There's no way one or the other of you won't notice if the user edits contrary to the agreement, whatever the username is.


 * WP:Probation doesn't require posting announcements of user name changes for editors under probation. And, two administrators noted directly in the unblock agreement on this page that a change of user name was expected and encouraged. The complete discussion of the block and unblock agreement, including name change, are present on this page in case anyone wonders about it.


 * WP:AGF is not suspended under probation. Please give the user a chance to show that s/he has learned from this experience and can be a productive policy-based editor. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that you place a brief note on your user page, RE, so that there is no question that you are attempting to avoid scrutiny. It's not mandatory, but it's a show of good faith that will go a long way to restoring the community's trust in your willingness to work with the encyclopedia.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point; my prior note was mainly addressing the question of it being a requirement. Voluntary disclosure of the prior usernames could be helpful in confirming a positive collaborative approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. However, it may also be necessary, in keeping the probation notice on this talk page, to point to the reasons and discussion leading up to his probation, which have his old name.  I don't see the necessity for having the old names here, although it is in keeping with the spirit of the probation requirements.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I will post a notice on my user page. ResearchEditor (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ResearchEditor. —Cesar Tort 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Consider archiving your fairly long talk page. Paste the following at the top of your talk page:

and it will archive automatically every post more than 7 days old. Note that the text and template itself will be invisible. Pasting the following:

Will place an archive box at the top of your page allowing access to previous posts. Also an option is simply deleting old posts, but archiving is preferred by most of the community. WLU (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the idea. I believe that it has been recommended that I keep the probation decision on this page, so I will change the parameters to "60d." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's a way to mark a section as not archived. Perhaps moving the MisaBot tag after that section? &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. Perhaps manually moving those sections to an archive (/Archive 0 ?), and transcluding them by including /Archive 0 on your page, would work.  The bot doesn't move sections without timestamps.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could make a specific archive for your block/user name discussion to make it more obvious than merely a subsection of your archive. I also might be able to get MiszaBot working for you, if you really want to keep the discussion on the page, add  to the page every couple days to keep the date fresh.
 * I've adjusted the link in your archive box to be internal rather than external. I don't see a real advantage other than being a bit neater.  Feel free to change it back.  WLU (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adjusting the link. I think I will manually archive for now. ResearchEditor (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you like, if you can get it to work MiszaBot is very convenient. I'm guessing if I played with it enough then I could get working properly, but archiving is hardly an onerous task.  WLU (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Normally, we don't include articles in both a category and its containing category, for example Category:Child sexual abuse should logically be contained in Category:Child abuse and Category:Sexual abuse, so you shouldn't need to add all three categories to an article. However, someone seems to have changed the category structure this week, so you may be right at the moment. I'll investigate.

I also don't think False allegation of child sexual abuse should be in Category:Divorce, but Divorce should certainly be linked in the article, which it doesn't seem to be at present. I'll change that one, myself.

Otherwise, your edits of about 12 hours ago look good. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing False allegation of child sexual abuse. If possible, please let me know about any changes to the guidelines around this. ResearchEditor (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In regard divorce, something should only be in a category if it's unquestionably related to that category. (It doesn't need to unquestionably fit the category, as Category:pseudoscience would have anything in it.)
 * Someone (I know who, but I don't have his name at the tips of my fingers) edited Category:Child sexual abuse categories to remove it from the logical supercategories I mentioned above. I've asked him why at his talk page, but I don't really want to revert, in case he has a reason that I'm not seeing.  If reverted, I'll remove the duplicate supercategories using AWB. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Categories restored to Category:Child sexual abuse, so the supercategories should no longer be needed. See Categorization and subcategories for a better description of the reasoning I (should have) used.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the cats and for information on the wikicat-guidelines. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS
Please stop using Dissociative Identity Disorder. Use lower-case letters to start each word. It Looks Silly And Is Unnecessary, Like It Was Written By Someone Who Wants It Taken Seriously. Please review MOS:CAPS. WLU (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

recent edit on Multiple personality controversy
This is a bothersome, if not troublesome edit in regards to why you were initially blocked. You know that DID/MPD is controversial. You know there is more to the story than simply a history of abuse, that DID/MPD patients are extremely suggestible, hypnotizable and memories can be distorted. So why did you paste only the 'supporting' half into the page? To me it suggests that you are still dedicated to the TRUTH rather than NPOV, and raises concerns about other edits you may have made. WLU (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, with respect, please AGF. In that regard, I've modified this section heading so as not to poison the well for anyone reading this discussion. I don't see how that particular edit sparks any concerns related to ResearchEditor's approach. The edit accurately reflects the content of the lead-in paragraph in the "diagnosis" section of the article in Mercks, a very reliable source.  In that particular reference, I do not see content supporting your statement that "DID/MPD patients are extremely suggestible, hypnotizable and memories can be distorted".  If it's in the reference and I missed it, please point it out.  I'm not saying your facts are wrong, just that I don't see it in that particular source.  NPOV is served by showing all sides of controversial issues, but there is no rule that every edit must show both sides.  Mercks is an excellent mainstream source, I'm surprised to see your comment here about this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jack-A-Roe for your clarification of this issue. It is possible that WLU is confusing one of my old edits from before months ago with one my recent ones. I believe that WLU is referring to an old edit from the DSM-IV. Here is the entire section, I believe rewritten by him : "The DSM is explicit about the controversy over the condition, identifying both the objective evidence of physical and sexual abuse in the history of individuals diagnosed with DID and that individuals accused of abuse are motivated to deny or distort past actions, but also points out that childhood memories may be distorted, and that individuals with DID are highly hypnotizable and unusually vulnerable to suggestion."


 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor." IMO, this is an important policy for all of us to remember. We are all trying to make these pages good ones, with balancing data from all reliable sources. Consensus and discussion are ways we can work together to develop quality pages. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to eat crow on that one, I was confusing the DSM with the Merck manual reference. Sorry RE, you were correct and I didn't do my homework on this one.  My apologies.  WLU (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've got to say RE, you handled this far more gracefully than I had any right to deserve given my comment and the error I made. Your very accurate clarification was particularly charitable and does you credit.  Thanks.  WLU (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, thank you for your apologies and compliment. And thank you also for your past advice and referrals to guidelines on wiki. They have helped me improve my editing a great deal. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff
Much better than a tenuous see also link. Good stuff. WLU (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and your original idea on this. Please feel free to add additional misdiagnoses to this section. ResearchEditor (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, 2,999,999 other articles to catch my eye. A note, per WP:MEDRS  the actual journal citation is always preferred over any lay summary.  If possible the preference is to track down and cite the original source rather than the lay summaries that are written for popular press.  A good addition, but here is one step further that makes the page and wikipedia that much better, more reliable and more informative. WLU (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the article URL. I was unable to find it before. I agree with you, but WP:MEDRS appears to prefer secondary sources. "In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources should be used with great care because of the potential for misuse." But quality secondary sources are preferred. "Review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wish I had a magic formula for tracking down the actual article citation but it's just google, pubmed, sweat and tears. Note that the popular summaries would not be considered 'review articles and specialist textbooks', therefore the original reference is still preferred over the lay-summary.  In any situation, if a lay summary cites a journal article, the journal article is preferred; if it's a choice between a journal article and a review article or high quality textbook, you are correct that the review article or textbook would be preferred (depending on the publication dates).  The policy would be discussing a comparison between equally reliable sources (i.e. a primary source says one thing but a review article says another), not two unequally reliable sources (i.e. a lay summary and a journal article; irrespective of the lay summary as a summary of a single article or an entire field, the journal article trumps).  That's my interpretation anyway, but I think you can see the sense in it.
 * I don't know if there's a policy or not, but if you look at the specific edit, I've appended the better of the two articles to the reference outside of the template as an externally-linked lay summary. Lay summary aren't a bad thing, they're just nowhere near as good as the horse's mouth so to speak.  WLU (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your explanation above makes sense. Thanks. ResearchEditor (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They usually do. Horrible, isn't it?  WLU (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation stuff
Hi,

The format field in the citation templates is for the file format (i.e. pdf, html), not if it's a lay-summary or not (see Template:Cite_article). The journal article is the real citation, the news article is just an easy read, so I usually don't bother citing them separately (separate citations implies that there are two different references that converge on a single conclusion, when it's really one reference and a news article referring to the real reference). Tucking the lay summary into the reference tags after the }} of the template puts the two together as a single reference but two separate works that can be reviewed. Check the CSA page diffs right after you inserted to see how I usually do it (no policy to support it, just a way that I think works well). WLU (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thanks for the info on this. This sounds like a good idea. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
You're justifying every single edit on the talk page of PTSD. Is there a reason? The only real reason to discuss on the talk page is if there's an actual or possible objection to an edit. Uncontroversial vandalism reverts and wikification don't really need talk page discussion. I mean, you can if you want to, but you're spending time unnecessarily. Unless there's an arb or other verdict that stated you needed to justify every edit to that page? Continue if you want, you may feel that based on your reception on other pages you need to do so, but generally that's not the case. WLU (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert incest
Hi RE,

Are you aware that you're listed as a party on mediation of covert incest? WLU (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot the link Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-21_Covert_incest. WLU (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Perhaps this can help us work out some of the issues. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2008