User talk:Sxologist

Merging discussions

Hi there, just wondering if it's time to take the merge requests from Talk:Gina Rippon to WP:ANRFC? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: absolutely, but I have no idea how to do that. There are a lot of pages involved. Sxologist (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The other ones might not have had sufficient comments to be honest, so might be best to leave those for longer, but I'll see about the Gina Rippon one itself at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright

Regarding what happened here, I know I've pasted passages longer than that into talk pages, but I think the crucial difference is that when I did so it was in the context of quoting and attributing the quote to the source. You'll want to be careful to avoid doing that, even though copy and paste is so easy, and restate it your own words. This applies to all pages, even userspace, as I understand it. Not sure how they find about such things. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, lol oops ;) they must have an autotool. My bad I know WP is quite stringent re: copyright. Sxologist (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, seeing this, I thought I'd introduce you to WP:Twinkle. It has a rollback-equivalent function. You simply enable it under Preferences > Gadgets. It has a lot of other useful features too. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahh – thanks Crossroads that's brilliant. Sxologist (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Barbara Bergmann bibliography

Hello Sxologist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Barbara Bergmann bibliography, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page is not a disambiguation page, or disambiguates two or more extant pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I must admit that I am puzzled why you moved Barbara Bergmann bibliography into Draftspace. Draftspace for new articles, and the bibliography article was started in April 2015. There may well be good reasons for the bibliography's draftication. Could you possibly set out what those reasons are? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, moving to draftspace is for new articles. If an article has been around for a while like this, your best options are WP:MERGE, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Sxologist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't know where this came from or why I was blocked – this is my only Wikipedia account. I am not Skoojal, just look at all my bad run ins I had with him while they edited as Freeknowledgecreator. I am so blindsided as to where this block came from. My edits have by in large been appreciated by most other editors in the realm that I edit within. Can @JzG: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Crossroads: and @Markworthen: please take a look? I am so confused and can't seem to find any investigation log??? It looks like someone has not reviewed all of the relevant talk pages and drawn the correct conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (Skoojal) consistently undid my edits and POV pushed psychoanalytic conversion therapy positions in a very subtle way. What has that got to do with my editing? I am confident this block will be lifted but shocked/confused as to why it occurred in the first place. Just look at this long winded argument I had with him when I first started editing (and there are many more). Edit: it looks like this accusation of me being a socky started here (why? It makes no logical sense, I was reverting a fringe edit from an anonymous IP after he removed APA guidelines on conversion therapy) and Crossroads defended me writing "while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area". Sxologist (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't know where this came from or why I was blocked – this is my only Wikipedia account. I am not Skoojal, just look at all my bad run ins I had with him while they edited as Freeknowledgecreator. I am so blindsided as to where this block came from. My edits have by in large been appreciated by most other editors in the realm that I edit within. Can <span class="template-ping">@[[User:JzG|JzG]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Markworthen|Markworthen]]:</span> please take a look? I am so confused and can't seem to find any investigation log??? It looks like someone has not reviewed all of the relevant talk pages and drawn the correct conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (Skoojal) consistently undid my edits and POV pushed psychoanalytic conversion therapy positions in a very subtle way. What has that got to do with my editing? I am confident this block will be lifted but shocked/confused as to why it occurred in the first place. Just look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Nicolosi#Removal_of_media_appearances long winded argument] I had with him when I first started editing (and there are many more). Edit: it looks like this accusation of me being a socky started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_on_Joseph_Nicolosi_and_Dean_Hamer here] (why? It makes no logical sense, I was reverting a fringe edit from an anonymous IP after he removed APA guidelines on conversion therapy) and Crossroads defended me writing "while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area". [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]] ([[User talk:Sxologist#top|talk]]) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't know where this came from or why I was blocked – this is my only Wikipedia account. I am not Skoojal, just look at all my bad run ins I had with him while they edited as Freeknowledgecreator. I am so blindsided as to where this block came from. My edits have by in large been appreciated by most other editors in the realm that I edit within. Can <span class="template-ping">@[[User:JzG|JzG]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Markworthen|Markworthen]]:</span> please take a look? I am so confused and can't seem to find any investigation log??? It looks like someone has not reviewed all of the relevant talk pages and drawn the correct conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (Skoojal) consistently undid my edits and POV pushed psychoanalytic conversion therapy positions in a very subtle way. What has that got to do with my editing? I am confident this block will be lifted but shocked/confused as to why it occurred in the first place. Just look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Nicolosi#Removal_of_media_appearances long winded argument] I had with him when I first started editing (and there are many more). Edit: it looks like this accusation of me being a socky started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_on_Joseph_Nicolosi_and_Dean_Hamer here] (why? It makes no logical sense, I was reverting a fringe edit from an anonymous IP after he removed APA guidelines on conversion therapy) and Crossroads defended me writing "while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area". [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]] ([[User talk:Sxologist#top|talk]]) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't know where this came from or why I was blocked – this is my only Wikipedia account. I am not Skoojal, just look at all my bad run ins I had with him while they edited as Freeknowledgecreator. I am so blindsided as to where this block came from. My edits have by in large been appreciated by most other editors in the realm that I edit within. Can <span class="template-ping">@[[User:JzG|JzG]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Markworthen|Markworthen]]:</span> please take a look? I am so confused and can't seem to find any investigation log??? It looks like someone has not reviewed all of the relevant talk pages and drawn the correct conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (Skoojal) consistently undid my edits and POV pushed psychoanalytic conversion therapy positions in a very subtle way. What has that got to do with my editing? I am confident this block will be lifted but shocked/confused as to why it occurred in the first place. Just look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Nicolosi#Removal_of_media_appearances long winded argument] I had with him when I first started editing (and there are many more). Edit: it looks like this accusation of me being a socky started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_on_Joseph_Nicolosi_and_Dean_Hamer here] (why? It makes no logical sense, I was reverting a fringe edit from an anonymous IP after he removed APA guidelines on conversion therapy) and Crossroads defended me writing "while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area". [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]] ([[User talk:Sxologist#top|talk]]) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I see that one user strangely accused me of being a Freeknowledgecreator sock here, and Crossroads defended me writing: "while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area." (much appreciated). This makes zero sense. Sxologist (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock. The totality of evidence is against them being the same person. The timing does not work out, as I said at the ANI thread started by an IP who is pro-fringe and may themselves be a sock. As also noted there and above, the POV does not line up at all. The ISP match is not sufficient evidence, since millions of people can share an ISP. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 22:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum - if Sxologist is FKC, this would mean that FKC, months before he was ever taken to ANI and had no reason to think he would ever be blocked, created another account and then actively used it against his POV, used it to argue against himself directly, and then after FKC was blocked, then continued to use this other account against what FKC always stood for. This makes no sense. Having the same ISP is not sufficient evidence for a block when the behavioral evidence contradicts it so strongly. And as someone who edits the topic area and is familiar with both editors, I will testify that these are definitely different editors, with Sxologist being new and inexperienced. I've filed several SPI cases where the behavioral evidence actually was super compelling, and the accounts were SPAs, and still no block was given. Since this is a helpful editor who works within policies and guidelines, then we should be all the more cautious. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• @NinjaRobotPirate: could you please take a look, since you were the one who blocked me? I don't know if this means anything but Freeknowledgecreator used to have a New Zealand badge on their user page, and I am also from New Zealand. Sxologist (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I wrote this up in case FKC appealed his block:

behavioral evidence

Arthur Janov Skoojal: Special:Diff/227799419 alphabetizing categories FKC: Special:Diff/566136004 alphabetizing categories Frederick Crews Skoojal: Special:Diff/215234798, Special:Diff/215235403 "tidy" Taste of Tears: Special:Diff/248345002, Special:Diff/253314444 "tidy" FKC: Special:Diff/753412622 "tidy" Camille Paglia Skoojal: Special:Diff/21880285 "shifting this sentence" Devil Goddess: Special:Diff/250775816 "shift sentence" FKC: Special:Diff/720331102 "shift sentence" Sigmund Freud Skoojal: Special:Diff/227773118 "alphabetical order", Special:Diff/227743752 "alphabetical order ... shifted", Special:Diff/227743362 "not a philosopher ... rearranging categories in alphabetical order" Polisher of Cobwebs: Special:Diff/505059825 "shifted influences into alphabetical order" ImprovingWiki: Special:Diff/636443577 "shift material" FKC: Special:Diff/821640116, Special:Diff/746489992 "not a philosopher" In general Skoojal: Special:Diff/222994664, "shifting material, tidying" FKC: Special:Diff/780143023, Special:Diff/780143527 "shift material" ImprovingWiki: Special:Diff/636443577 "shift material to a better location" PoC: Special:Diff/407364261, Special:Diff/408846763 "shifted material"

Notice how the socks constantly "shift", "tidy", and "tweak" content? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That's decent evidence against those accounts, but Sxologist isn't listed there at all, so it isn't evidence against him. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, what does that have to do with my account? As Crossroads points out... I'm not listed anywhere? You have not reviewed the long history of Skoojal going after my edits. Here's two I just pulled from a single article. FKC undid edit here, and Crossroads corrected him. Another time FKC reverted my edit THREE MINUTES after I published it??? We come from polar opposite ends of the spectrum, he literally has povpushed conversion therapy through every single account, where as I have consistently edited along mainstream lines. When I have edited similar articles to him, its because 90% of the article will have been written exclusively by him and they are so badly skewed in one direction that I occasionally tried to remove a fringe statement. This is pretty bizarre since I actually quietly suggested somebody might be a FKC sock here on Flyers talk page. Further, judging by the comments on your talk page you also appear to say that it's something to do with my ISP. I live in New Zealand (where FKC was from, according to his old Wikipedia profile). We have a few major dominant ISP's, and in fact, most of the companies just feed their internet from a major ISP (Spark). Sxologist (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• More evidence that I'm not Skoojal/Freeknowledgecreator:

• I had a long winded argument with Freeknowledgecreator about his POV pushing on a book promoting gay conversion therapy, where I accused him of quote mining and undue weight (keep in mind this is DURING his review where he attempted to achieve good article status).
• I made a list of about 15 articles that FKC had made and asked to get them all merged for undue weight, POV and fringe views on "curing homosexuality". @Markworthen: can attest to the fact that I am not FKC.
• Freeknowledgecreator undoes my edit 3 mins after making it
• FKC undoes another one of my edits here
• I asked Flyer and Crossroads about somebody being a potential sock of FKC and we discuss why it won't be him.
• @NinjaRobotPirate: I can get a lot more if you really want, but these should make my point pretty obvious... I also point to Crossroads addendum comment above. Sxologist (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ultimately I believe someone other than NinjaRobotPirate makes the decision to officially answer the unblock request. If you have any more cases where you argued against FKC, I'd encourage you to add them, even though this is probably enough. But still, the more the better. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• More evidence I am not Skoojal/FKC:

• I restored old sections of the Simon LeVay article (a gay neuroscientist) whose article had significant portions previously deleted by FKC.
• I made a comment to a user about how KFC had been blocked as a socky, and I note: "Freeknowledgecreator was just banned as a sock puppet, and his editing from his other socks is telling. I'm not impressed by a large write up implying I'm somehow 'angry' about the book - simply because I am familiar with the research on the (research of the) etiology of sexual orientation"
• I reinstated a large section the George Rekers scandal on the NARTH article, which FKC had previously removed (albeit for citation problems). But FKC appeared to defend a lot of NARTH related articles, and created articles on the books of many of their key founders.
• Freeknowledgecreator undid my edit to rearrange an article.
• There are plenty more out there. He undid my edits sometimes minutes after I had made them. We had a volume of back and forth on talk pages, I consistently tagged other users to ask about whether or not his edits were fair or not, I criticized his edits during his reviews for good article status and so on. Simply having an interest in the same topics doesn't mean that I am him. FKC consistently pushed his freudian religious interpretation of sexuality – whereas mine is actually informed by *evidence*. I am glad Crossroads has said my edits were useful, and, quite rightly points out that I was an inexperienced editor when I started in March. This block makes no sense. Sxologist (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about how Wikipedia identifies sockpuppets, but I can say that I have consistently found Sxologist to be a conscientious, thoughtful, and civil Wikipedian. Is there truly evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is actually Skoojal/FreeKnowledgeCreator?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Sxologist (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)