User talk:ResearchEditor

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave comments below and I will reply to them when I can. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome changes

This is a well accepted syndrome in countries other than the USA, although it has been widely recognized by American courts. You issue of "self published" is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.20.215 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your citation template

Do you notice that every citation template you use has the date as a red link? Can you try and fix the format so the dates work. Just peek at one that works and you will see that the format is backward. Also do you know the trick for converting ALL CAPS into the Title Case when you cust and paste from the New York times or other headlines? Its easy just paste into MS Word first and the highlight and then under the format menu is change case. You may have to convert from ALL CAPS to "no caps" first and then convert to Title Case, its a just a bug in MS Word, write me if you need a lesson. BTW your a much better editor under your new name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My old edits do have the dates backwards. Now I am trying to put them the right way. I will convert the titles in the future. Thanks for the comment about my editing. ResearchEditor (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never gotten it to work, myself, but there should be a MediWiki function to convert a string to upper, lower, or title case, if you don't happen to have Word available. I've gotten some of the other MediWiki functions to work as substituted. Even if it does work, the title case Would Capitalize A Word Even If It Is An Article Not Normally Capitalized in Title Case, so you'd still need to edit it. And I concur, you're a much better editor under your new name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone does know about the function, please let me know. And thanks for the comment about my editing. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some things to think about

Please review WP:COATRACK. Note the line "Coatrack articles can be born out of purposeful desire to promote a particular bias, or they can be born accidentally through unintended excessive focus on some part of the nominal subject." I think it's probably not deliberate. But I think you miss the point due to an excessive focus on DID at the expense of the body of the article. You do good work, but then undo it by dumping a massive amount of unneeded text on a tenuously related subject. It's frustrating. Also look at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing - I've a large number of articles I watch, having to deal with the same issues on multiple pages because you're civil, even polite, but still detract from some of the pages you work on because you're POV-ing the article without realizing it. I find myself becoming less neutral because I'm irritated at always having to fix the same problems and pushing back the other direction. WLU (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments that the DID info should be more connected to SRA on the page. I've looked at the article you mention above. My goal has been to not be a POV pusher. I have worked hard on editing from both points of view, looking at making neutral edits, while considering undue weight concepts. I have deleted points of view I agree with when added that were not sourced. It has been frustrating to me when you come into an article and make large changes, deleting peer reviewed reliable sources, to fit your own view of how the article should read. I don't believe that you do this intentionally. But articles on wikipedia are edited by many editors with many points of view as to how they should read, following the guidelines in different ways. If several editors work hard on an article, coming to consensus on several parts of it, then I don't think it is a good idea to re-edit or delete those sections without a discussion on the talk page first. I believe that there is no need for either of us to push back in the opposite direction. IMO, it would be easier and better for wikipedia if our edits and others could be combined together to make the pages more informative and encyclopedic. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I've made bold changes, you reverted, we're discussing. All within policies and guidelines. It's frustrating for me to piss around on talk pages when it's much easier to simply edit and evaluate the final product. Your initial revert on SRA wasn't wholesale, which I appreciate, you kept parts which you thought had merit. We've discussed, I've edited again to reflect your points. In some cases my large-scale changes were the product of a lot of reading and reflection on the sources used to justify points. That's hard to include in an edit summary. Review the page now, edit if you'd like, then the discussion can renew. WLU (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have visited the wikipages you mention above. At WP:BOLD it is stated: "substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories...should be done with extra care....On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles." SRA is a controversial topic and article, and I am wondering if in hindsight, it might have been better to find consensus first. Your comment about "piss(ing) around on talk pages" is in some ways disconcerting (though I may be seeing this from an American interpretation of the language). I believe that sometimes the best edits on wikipedia are made when consensus is reached on talk pages and a variety of editors with different viewpoints work together synergistically. I've also noticed that you edit from a certain POV, which is natural, and I am sure this is unintentional on your part. I appreciate the spirit of our discourse here and your effort to find consensus on the SRA page in general. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha!

Regards our conversation on talk:motivation for rape, I found it and I am proud. Though also feel kinda dumb because I've already referred to that page and missed that it was right there. Check out WP:ELNO, point 15 - it says "[Avoid l]inks to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." So it's not proscribed, but it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2008-05-29

Good research on this. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COAT

Please re-read coatrack very, very carefully. You have a tendency to mix the contents of pages. I've seen it on iatrogenesis, satanic ritual abuse, and if I looked at the history, I would bet I'd find it in Elizabeth Loftus as well (particularly given this section). There is a difference between a criticism of an idea and the criticism of a person. Placing the former in the latter's page is not appropriate. Also, the use of quotes is not a good idea in most cases - since quotes are partial, the of necessity give only part of the story. Unless the quote is exact to what the footnote is referencing, it's not a good idea, and unless it's controversial, it's not necessary. I did not see on the Loftus talk page a pressing need for a discussion

Be very careful if replacing information, about the subject of the page - this is about Loftus, though it may touch on her work, it's not solely about her work, which should have its own page built on the work of Loftus and the myriad other scholars working in the area. At best, make it short in terms of 'her work has been criticized (for, maybe). Better is if there's a comment about Loftus herself, not her work. Though big, she is not the entire body of scholars in the fields she is an expert in. WLU (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at Loftus talk. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed

Hi ResearchEditor. I agree with your edit [1]. I do believe that we need to give those who object to the information an opportunity to express more of their objections on the talkpage though. If they continue to offer nothing but personal attack and incivility, or if they continue to avoid the issues, then of course the information can be presented back into the article. That being pretty much inevitable anyway. I'd recommend the patience of a saint as that is probably what it is going to take to deal with some views on this article. Phdarts (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My edits clearly follow wikipedia policy, but will try to follow having "the patience of a saint." ResearchEditor (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know the adoption of said patience is not exactly policy. I would class it more as a helpful self-discipline, and one quality additional to a sense of humour to be applied as a coping mechanism. Clearly there are some rather objectionable issues to deal with and more to come. Phdarts (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. There is a huge difference between "Noblitt says x" and "Noblit says Otherguy says x". Each must be attributed differently and used differently. WLU (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_found_the_material

"It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." This was made clear in the reference itself, but I have no problem if this is also made clear in the text.ResearchEditor (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Those links go to the same place. If you have access to the primary source rather than the intermediate, it's common sense and from an attribution perspective far superior to cite the primary. Intermediates are only used in cases where the primary is unavailable. It may be clear that an intermediate reference is used, but it's stupid and unnecessary to cite an intermediate when there is access to the primary. WLU (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You've seen that I've added my Hammond comment to multiple talk pages. You've added the same reply. As a courtesy, I am not going to add this comment to all those pages in reply, but it applies to all. I dislike singling out editors, which is why my initial comment was vague. WLU (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I also assume that you have seen my reply at this. I will not add this anywhere else either at this point. I also dislike singling out other editor's edits, but at this point, it is necessary, as the content of the pages is not being edited according to wikipedia guidelines. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article translation you asked for

Hi, you've asked for a translation of [2]. Automated translation by translate.google.com actually does it pretty comprehensible and well, but here's my translation:

30% of men in Russia play with child pornography

Chelyabinsk, March 28 (2008) (News agency Novyi Region, author of the article: Anna Vanina). Tolerant attitude of the society contributes to thriving prostitution. This was stated today at a conference in Chelyabinsk on creating mechanisms for interagency cooperation in solving problems of moral education.

Our correspondent reports from the conference: Russia sees a growing sexual exploitation of adults and children. The reasons of that growth are poverty, inavailability of education and asocial way of life and on the other hand, the athmosphere of "beautiful life" and increasing demand. Thus, the participants of the conference stated that 64% of men in Russia visit pornographic websites, and 47% out of them visit websites with child pornography. Homeless children become sex slaves most often. According to public prosecutor of Russia, there are 1 to 1.5 million homeless children today in Russia. 6% out of them (and this might have already increased!) are engaged in commercial sex, including pornographic movies.

One of the reasons for the wide spread of child and adult prostitution is tolerant attitude of the society. South Ural State University student Evgeniya Konysheva states that the Russian society lacks an athmosphere of condemn towards prostitution, which is, by the way, confirmed by polls. One poll showed that 47% of Russians have strictly negative attitude to prostitution, 26% had difficulties giving a definite answer, and 25% are even finding good sides with it, while those who condemn prostitution do it mostly because of physical, rather than moral reasons. Thus, every third person condemning prostitution explained that it is because of the risk of contracting STDs. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Restriction review

It appears that you have complied with the editing restrictions placed on you four month ago, [3][4]. I feel comfortable at this time in releasing you from those editing restrictions with the understanding that you will continue abiding by all Wikipedia Policies or you may be subject to further sanctions including being blocked or placed on article probation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dreadstar † 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. I will continue to abide by all Wikipedia Policies as you state above. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SRA page

You are currently edit warring on satanic ritual abuse when two other editors disagree with you. Please cease and attempt to convince people on the talk page or seek dispute resolution. You are getting close to violating the three revert rule for which you can face escalating blocks. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I am edit warring, however will stop editing for now. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to take a break from that article for a while, then start with the talk page when you're ready to proceed. While there are two editors who happen to agree, that's not enough people to create a consensus; there are still open questions. I've not had time to review the article recently so I can't comment directly at this time. I'll try to take a look soon. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting back to the same version is edit warring. We are both edit warring. The difference is that there is currently one person who agrees with me and I don't have a history of blocks for POV-pushing on this page. 2 editors is not consensus, but neither is one. A RFC may result. WLU (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually two persons agree with you. I've been following the debate throughout these says until today, when I broke my silence. —Cesar Tort 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even still, consensus is determined not solely through weight of numbers but through compliance with policies and guidelines. It is up to the individual reverting against consensus (in terms of pure weight of numbers) to convince other editors the merits of their position per the P&G; failing to do so purely through sources and references and defending convincing interpretations of P&G suggests other members of the community be brought in through the variety of noticeboards that exist or a request for comment. To date it does not appear that RE's edits have been convincingly argued, but this could change. WLU (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus at this point, there can't be any individual(s) arguing against it.

From WP Consensus (bold is mine): "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on

In other words, all editors need to agree on a version of the page.

"I do believe that my edits have been convincingly argued, but I will bring additional arguments in if necessary. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Undent. This assumes we are all working from the same set of policies and interpretations of the policies. An argument that sources from a mis-application of the community policies and guidelines, which represents a far greater consensus that overrides any individual wikiproject or individual page, is irrelevant. Consensus does not mean everyone is happy and so long as the counter-arguments by opposing editors endorse a non-controversial, wikipedia-wide accepted version of the policies and guidelines, the unhappy parties arguments will receive little to no weight. If several editors agree to a specific interpretation of the policies and guidelines, it's up to the dissenting editor to demonstrate the understanding is incorrect. WLU (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Thanks for adding sources to the list at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse. Could you please add them using the standard organization and formatting that I started the list with (alphabetical order, italicize titles, include publisher, put date after the author name)? It would be really helpful if the organization was clear and clean. There is no rush here. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, also do not add sources that do not take a position on the matter at hand please. See this removal. The source states the following from the outset: "This study provides no argument for or against the veridicality of RA." The literature from psychotherapy which is not concerned with veridicality but only with treatment, does not support the position that SRA claims are truthful--especially in all their gory details. Please do us a favor and remove other such sources on good faith so we don't have to sift through them all.PelleSmith (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that that these sources should not be cited. They do back the fact that SRA exists, since they are discussing the victims of these horrible crimes as well as their treatment. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT--but with the middle ground section in place that is where it was moved. What do you fail to understand about the above statement?--I'll bold it for you. Many therapists are open about the fact that "belief" is/was a necessary part of therapy, and not that belief is/was a statement about the historical/material factuality of the details of whatever their patients suffered. Honest statements like the one above clearly speak directly to this. Also, can you please not add duplicate entries. Your lack of care in adding entries to the list is rather offensive. I've asked you nicely to take you time and be thorough. Instead you just create more work for the rest of us but adding duplicates and/or adding entries that belong in the no-stance section as if they support your position. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged crimes. Numerous sources make the assertion that therapists are not concerned with truth (i.e. if allegations actually happened in the way the patients assert), unlike their criminal justice system counterparts. One day I might get around to adding this. The same sources discuss, in the same breath, that this is pretty much a given and that to do otherwise injures the patient-therapist relationship.

The arguments over categorization as 'supporting' or 'opposing' are one reason why I don't think the list of sources will be immensely helpful in determining what the 'consensus' position is. However, more sources are always useful and the exercise becomes deciding if it's a reliable source, and how to summarize and integrate. WLU (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that it is in the middle ground section. Have you read this from the article that I put on the SRA page? "Although the prevalence of satanic ritual abuse is not known, its involvement in a variety of social contexts and diverse belief systems has been reported. Highly secretive and rigidly structured cults have been implicated, as well as groups exploiting day care centers, groups disguised as traditional religious structures, families (including multigenerational involvement), small self-styled adolescent groups, child pornography and drug rings, and individuals acting either independently or within loosely knit groups (Brown, 1986: Gallant, 1986, 1988; Gould, 1986, 1987; Kahaner, 1988;Young, 1989)." This puts it on the pro-side. There is no middle ground in this statement. I have tried to add things to the list as carefully as I can and I disagree with your assertion that I haven't.

Some sources also state that therapist and survivor accounts are evidence of the crimes perpetrated. The list of sources will help in making sure that reliable source are equally represented on the page. What needs to be found and covered on the page is the absurdness of the theory of "panic," how it can't be proven and is only a biased interpretation of the data. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed at least 3 duplicate entries that you added "carefully" not to mention several sources that didn't say what you claimed they said. Spare us. You have also made no attempt to format and organize your additions at all. The duplicates, for instance, would have very easily beens spotted had you alphabetized. If you are still arguing about the source in which this appears: "This study provides no argument for or against the veridicality of RA." then you better have a good explanation on how to read that sentence in any way but the obvious literal one which is plain for all to understand. The section you quote says "its involvement in a variety of social contexts and diverse belief systems has been reported." Yes such things have been reported but a report is not proof of anything but the report itself--no matter what the content of said report is. Stating what those contents are does not either mean taking a stance on their veracity, or veridicality. This grows evermore tiresome. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A report by a witness is eyewitness evidence that the event occurred. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

removed section

Hi Research Editor,

What you wrote in edit summary of McMartin preschool trial, "deleted as per undue weight - this case is already mention under the legacy section", is no valid reason to remove the new section. I've reinserted it again. Go to discuss to talk page if you want but first please read wp:undue. Thanks. —Cesar Tort 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:UNDUE. This is one recanter out of 360 children that were identified as having been abused. It should not have a whole section, as per WP:UNDUE "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your OR interpretation of UNDUE. Please remember the orthodox interpretation that WLU has called many times to your attention. I won't repeat it here. —Cesar Tort 04:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an accurate interpretation. This was a minor story years later. It does not deserve a full section. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The right place to discuss it is in the article's talk. —Cesar Tort 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Repressed memory

Hi. I just reactivated myself on the Neutrality Project and made a few rearrangements to Repressed memory. Please comment on the talk page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed barnstar

I have removed the barnstar from your archive [5]. I originally gave you the barstar because I believed you were editing with a strong point of view that was legitemate. After reading dozens of journal articles and hundreds of pages in books, I do not believe your contributions are a legitemate means of working with WP:NPOV and therefore your contributions were not a form of cooperation. WLU (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits primarily promote an extremely skeptical point of view. In my opinion, your edits violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as there are many other opinions and views in the field. A good example of this is the extreme amount of citations your edits have given to Victor and a couple of other extreme skeptics that ignore much of the research in the field. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Many times it has been explained to you that WLU is not the one who doesn't understand NPOV. I would recommend asking advise in the boards. You will most probably see there that WLU is interpreting policy correctly (for instance, he has many times explained why it's ok to cite a RS like Victor several times). —Cesar Tort 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He compared the SRA article to unrelated articles to do so. Two other editors, one with a neutral perspective on SRA and one with a very skeptical perspective both stated on SRA talk that they felt it was excessive also. Your edits at times push an extremely skeptical POV that misrepresents the balance of the research. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But please answer what I said above. If you present your complaint to the boards, they will inform you whether or not yours is the right interpretation of NPOV. —Cesar Tort 07:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, the recent amount of extremely skeptical edits at SRA violates WP:UNDUE. This is an example of the undue weight given three extremely skeptical authors.

Frankfurter 11

Victor 24

LaFontaine 13

48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) have been given to three authors, all extremely skeptical about the existence of SRA.

I would be interested in finding a truly neutral party that could look into this. If you have ideas on this, please feel free to state them. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can post a request for comment and invite people from related wikiprojects. That would be the most logical place to start if you are looking for neutral 3rd parties.PelleSmith (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are so many boards in WP. Just try "dispute resolution" for example. Alternatively, ask for general advise in "desk help". They answer you pretty quickly there. —Cesar Tort 08:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A request for comment has already been placed on the boards. You can see it in talk:SRA. —Cesar Tort 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Which articles did I compare SRA to?
2. Who are the "two editors"?
3. I'll address your statements about Frankfruter, LaFontaine and Victor on talk:sra. WLU (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I am unable to find the exact phrase you used, but you compared the frequent use of Victor to other articles where one ref was used as much or more. JAR stated "17 citations to one source does seem like a lot." And I am unable to find the other quote, but I believe it was PS. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of repeating your npov concerns over and over again in talk:sra, Why you just don't ask for a third opinion in WP:NPOVN. —Cesar Tort 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on the noticeboard. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good! —Cesar Tort 09:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that people from the board are starting to vote, may I please ask you to reconsider the view that pushing the pro-SRA side "is NPOV"? —Cesar Tort 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia is not a democracy but one of its guidelines is WP:CONSENSUS. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again you miss the main thrust - it's not enough to say "too much Victor". Pick those citations you think Victor is unnecessary or an excessive emphasis, and say why. Just removing half of them is not a good idea and inappropriate - which half? Which references? Victor is used for a lot, as is La Fontaine and Frankfurter. Because they are lengthy books, they have large volumes of text and in many cases are used for basic sourcing like timelines, contextual information and the like. So stop saying "remove Victor" and get specific. WLU (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your edit above misses the point. To give 24 citations to one author on a page clearly violates WP:UNDUE in terms of proportionality. It has been stated on the SRA talk page that editors must consider following the research after the year 2000, yet there are 92 references for extreme skepticism in the SRA article, another violation of WP:UNDUE. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I get your point - you think both in terms of absolute number and proportion, there is too much emphasis placed on a small number of sources. I have made the point that this argument is not particularly convincing or meritous. I'll try to make my point in a different way - how can the sources possibly be removed in a way that does not leave a lot of {{fact}} tags? How do we decide which uses of the books are inappropriate? What sentences or citations should be removed? You've consistently refused to state which reference and use is appropriate, which even if I thought we should remove the sources should be removed, isn't helpful. So try picking a specific problematic or excessive citation and indicate why it should be removed. The only alternative is for us to remove the sources at random. I don't see very much merit in that approach. If you have an alternative suggestion for removing sources, present it. WLU (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop it

You have yet to demonstrate that the mainstream position on satanic ritual abuse is anything but skeptical. Deal with it, but stop edit warring. Cease to add 'those skeptical of SRA' to every sentence. Skepticism is the norm, Noblitt is fringe and should not be emphasized. SRA is a historical phenomenon, and now it's over. WLU (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of SRA references cites 30 to 40 peer reviewed articles, not including books and other articles plus several after the year 2000. Please stop edit warring. My edits are an attempt at consensus and compromise. I make changes each time and then go to talk to discuss. Your edits and others simply revert with pop ups.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you do massive edits I would recommend asking 3rd opinion in the board in which you presented your complaint. Otherwise there's a chance that you will be reverted en bloc again. Please ask for advice to the experts of the NPOV policy. —Cesar Tort 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits will follow wikipedia policy. Please do not make any changes without adequate explanation when making the edits. Otherwise your reverts will simply be edit warring. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Refactor pleaes

ResearchEditor,

Please refactor your latest comments on AN. Put WLU's comments back the way they were and reply underneath them. What you did is very confusing to the reader.PelleSmith (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try to do this if possible. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this please

ResearchEditor why did you remove the comments I and another editor wrote here? Please explain.PelleSmith (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you notice, it was an accident and I immediately fixed it here before I read your comment here. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AN

Please see [6]. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply at the ANI page

reply to proposed topic ban

Below please find my reply. Note this will be long, since I believe that this is a very serious matter and should be thought out very carefully and slowly before a full decision is made.

I have tried very hard to edit from the position of following the five pillars of Wikipedia. I have edited from both sides of the debate when needed to ensure that the concepts of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV needed to be followed. As an example of this, I have deleted unsourced arguments from either side of the debate when added to pages. I have also posted both sides of an argument when needed to fairly present a reference's opinion.

In regard to my position of the page representing the possible reality of SRA, I posted these references:

here

Some of these are post 2000, which shows there is some recent support in the literature for the pro-SRA position, though these are also critiqued by another editor in this section.

I have tried using a variety of noticeboards, including WP:30, WP:RFC and WP:NPOVN as well as asking on the SRA discussion page for ideas for different ways to discuss edits before their being added to the page, but this suggestion was ignored or denied. I have tried as much as possible to discuss my edits on the talk page while making them and justified my reasoning for each edit I have made.

Below were my reasons for believing the page violates WP:UNDUE

1)Number of references given to three extremely skeptical researchers (as of last week)

Frankfurter 11

Victor 24

LaFontaine 13

48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) have been given to three authors, all extremely skeptical about the existence of SRA. This violates WP:UNDUE. If this extremely skeptical point of view is so popular in the field, then why does the article need to cite only three authors so many times. The answer could be that "panic theory" is being given undue weight in the article.

2)Though those editing from a skeptical position state they want post year 2000 edits as evidence of pro SRA theories, they cite pre-2000 extreme skeptical researchers 92 times, probably more now - in the SRA article.

My question, unanswered on the talk page, was in essence, if extreme skepticism is the majority position on the topic of SRA, then why is there such a large reliance on a couple of researchers and pre-2000 references promoting extreme skepticism?

Though I do not necessarily agree with the tone in the SRA talk page reply below, I do agree with the ideas presented.

In reply to one of the editors promoting and editing from a skeptical position on the SRA page, it was written on the SRA talk page

"You demand that RE supply "unequivocal proof" of SRA, and yet two of your favorite sources (Victor and Frankfurter) are purely theoretical works. Why do you require such a low burden of proof from yourself, and such a high one from RE?

You call clinical accounts of treating RA patients "wishy-washy BS",and yet clinical accounts are a crucial part of psychological and psychiatric literature, and they always have been. Are you simply cleaving off a significant body of scientific literature because it contradicts your POV?

I would be crucified if I went through a select group of credible, peer-reviewed sources that took SRA seriously, and amended this article accordingly, entrenching that POV in sentence by sentence. I would be flayed alive. And yet you've done exactly this for the sceptical team, and when RE raised his concerns quite validly, and politely, you flamed him....Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that RE is the only representative of the "other side" of this debate is because editors have shit on any non-sceptic on this page since it was first written. That's why, as... notes, "one side" is dominating this page. You've cleared out everyone else . This page does not reflect the variety of opinions on the subject of SRA. Far from being "outside the mainstream", SRA has been mainstreamed to the point where it is integrated into existing literature on sexual assault, domestic violence and child protection....--Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And a comment from a neutral voice on the SRA talk page, unfortunately the only one

I must repeat, I am not a "believer"; more accurately, I'm a "skeptic"(though some editors here might think it's funny I describe myself that way); the way I see skepticism is that I'm as skeptical of disbelieving as I am of believing. When hard science can't answer a question, it's OK for it to remain a question. That said, there certainly was a moral panic about SRA that went beyond its actual prevalence (that could have ranged from none, to some few cases, or maybe a few more than a few -but not to "many"); so the emphasis on the moral panic is appropriate in the article, though that does not mean that the still-open question of what really happened need be relegated to fringe status. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see a revert of my most recent edits here

here

If you check this edit that all I was trying to do was add two lines from a NYT article about the McMartin trial, add two lines about a recent research study about SRA with several thousand people, add one line about an opinion from an APA published book about SRA from a notable psychiatrist, restore two lines to the article about day care studies from reliable sources that was delete without reason and correct an interpretation of a Van Benschoten source that was changed it is now inaccurate. This was reverted totally, though this was also replied to by another editor on the talk page.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to find editors totally neutral on the SRA topic. Most of the editors above that have commented on this proposed ban I believe have skeptical or extremely skeptical views on the topic of the existence of SRA. Some of this is obvious from the SRA talk page itself. This means that their opinions on this proposed ban could possibly be colored by their views on the topic itself, providing an unfair decision in this matter.

In essence, when one chooses a jury, one does not choose people that may have a bias. What is needed is for several truly neutral editors on this topic, like Mangojuice and others to discuss this and really look over the talk page edits at SRA, as well as the actual edits made for at least the last month or so before a decision should be made. There have been several problems on the SRA talk page, including violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that may need to be addressed or at least discussed. Also, editors' edits from the skeptical or extreme skeptical should also be looked at, as several editors working on the SRA page edit only from an extremely skeptical position.

Honestly, my opinion is that the above discussion of a topic ban is being used to limit debate on the topic of SRA as well as control the content on the SRA page itself. This only hurts wikipedia and its status as an Internet encyclopedia, for those reading the page familiar with the SRA topic will realize that the page itself now only represents one side of the field.

But, among editors at wikipedia, it appears that my view is in the minority. So though I believe that I honestly tried as hard as I could to follow all wikipedia policies and guidelines, I will agree not to edit the SRA page itself for one week, starting from now.

Hopefully more neutral editors will begin to work on the SRA page in the future, so that a truly balanced and accurate view of this field can be presented to the public. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have closed this thread and noted your editing restrictions both there and at WP:RESTRICT - the short and sweet version is that you have to stay away from Satanic ritual abuse and its associated talkpage for six months, or you risk being placed under further sanctions. east718 // talk // email // 12:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note that East718 has amended the topic ban to include "closely related articles, and their respective talkpages". —Cesar Tort 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advise

It's no sarcasm when I say that I'd like to help you in your quest. Perhaps it's better to do it here than persisting in your complaints in the borads and with the admins. If they feel irritated for your continuous posts, even further action might (not sure) be taken.

I don't know how to start. In a sense we are on the same side since the pro child movement is our passion. We both like Lloyd deMause (and perhaps you like Alice Miller, like me).

If you talk to JAR by email he might give you further advise. I'm not sure if you will get the response you are looking for from the admins.

I doubt that Biao is not editing "because he was bullied". He wasn't. Maybe he has other reasons. Just ask him if you wish.

I'd like to communicate with you, if possible. But if you find this post unwelcome, tell me and I'll never post again (or delete it if you wish). On the other hand, if you want someone in the wiki to talk to you, even someone who thinks different (SRA, etc.), just answer it.

Cesar Tort 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To Research Editor. I must say I admire your attempt to make "Satanic ritual abuse" more nuanced, and not totally dominated by the so called sceptics. I am sorry that the resistance to your attempts has been so massive. I am writing from Sweden and can´t engage myself in the editing of Wikipedia in English, but I am glad that there are those who tries. Kiremaj70 (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is unfortunate that wikipedia did not work this time and the article became so heavily biased by a couple of editors, deleting much of the peer reviewed literature in the field. Perhaps more editors will work on the article in the future to make it a better and more complete one. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the talk of "scholarly consensus" is quite nonsensical. Just to give one more example of a known English scholar who accept the existence of RA, sociologist Sara Scott and her book "The politics and experience of ritual abuse" from 2001. Kiremaj70 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would totally agree with you. The field is very polarized. Unfortunately the SRA article now reads like it has been decided on by a couple of extreme skeptics and "panic" theory.

see these more recent sources -

Noblitt, J.R. (2008). Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations. Bandor, OR: Robert Reed. p. 552. ISBN 1-934759-12-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Becker, T (2008). "The extreme abuse surveys: Preliminary findings regarding dissociative identity disorder". Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder. London: Karnac Books. pp. 32–49. ISBN 1-855-75596-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Noblitt, JR (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96665-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Lacter, E.; Lehman, K. (2008). "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress"

Template:Cite article

Pepinsky, Hal. "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist."

Critical Criminology 11(1) 2002 pp. 61-73

Pepinsky, Hal. "Sharing and responding to memories." American Behavioral Scientist Vol 48(10), Jun 2005. pp. 1360-1374.

McLeod, K. and Goddard, C. R. (2005) ‘The ritual abuse of children – A critical perspective’ Children Australia, 30 (1):27-34

Pepinsky, H. (2005). "A criminologist's quest for peace". Critical Justice. 1 (1).

Sarson, J. and L. McDonald "Ritual Abuse-Torture in Families", in Jackson, N. (ed) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, Routledge, 2007

Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17.

"The Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive", by Diana Napolis, is published on the world-wide web at: This archive contains 92 cases as of February 12, 2008. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys: If you need a forum of a child rights advocate who happens to believe in SRA, I recommend Dennis Rodie's site and its bulletin board. In fact, I used to post there. Kiremaj70: Do you know that Dennis also lives in Sweden? Cheers. —Cesar Tort 03:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this "accidentally deleted comment". —Cesar Tort 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping to your ban?

ResearchEditor,

Very shortly after your 6 month topic ban went into effect several "newbies" started appearing at the Satanic Ritual Abuse entry, at related entries and as creators of new related entries. Meanwhile User:ResearchEditor stopped editing completely here at Wikipedia. Coincidence? I'd like to think so but I find it very hard to believe. Two of these editors User:Baawip80 and User:Extrabreeze have gone so far as to vote in the same AfD. If these editors are you I suggest you stop this at once. If they are not you could you do us all a favor and offer some reassurance of this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The SRA page looks even worse than it did before. It appears there is no hope for a scholarly representation of the topic. It looks like it was written by the FMSF. Many of its sources are FMSF members and sympathizers. As I stated on the talk page before my ban, these nonmainstream, extremely skeptical sources are given a ridiculously large number of citations. The SRA page ignores or severely minimizes so many reliable sources on the topic that are either pro-SRA existence or neutral SRA existence, that anyone familiar with the topic will realize it is a joke. After receiving your query above, I noticed that even a couple of recent small edits, even from apparently reliable sources by editors not totally skeptical to SRA were deleted. It appears that anyone that wants to work on the page in good faith that doesn't hold an extremely skeptical perspective will either be scared off or banned. I am assuming that these "newbies" will be scared off too.

The page is propaganda at its worst. The editors that control the page have done everything they can to twist wikipedia policy via their edits to support their own extremely skeptical POV, which their edits showed they believed in all along.

The question is, who really benefits from such a blatant misrepresentation of this topic. Those that committed and continue to commit these horrible crimes against children and humanity will.

Pedophilia is unfortunately a multi-billion dollar industry. At this point I have no hope for this part of wikipedia and had decided not to edit this part or even slightly related ones since my ban began. Perhaps I will return after my ban ends, perhaps not. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't benefit from it. In fact, I'll unwatch the SRA article now. If you return in February (I mean, if you are not sockpupetting), I'd recommend trying to grasp policy, specifically the point of wp:undue's on fringe's views. However, I'd better recommend not editing these articles at all. You know?: in the 1970s my mother poured psychiatric drugs in my meals (though I was perfectly sane). It was a most painful experience to see wp:undue invoked against my pov in the psychiatry articles. So I quit. I never got blocked. Just quit. It's the sane way in articles in which we have conflict of interest. I'll also unwatch your talk page now and even other SRA editors' user pages (such as ExtraBreeze and others). In case you are sockpupetting, you might do the same. Anyway, I wish you good luck, ResearchEditor :) —Cesar Tort 06:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight at the SRA page has been manipulated by the deletion or ignoring of any source that would verify the existence of SRA. It has also been manipulated by the overciting of FMSF members and sympathizers at the page. As you know, I researched and developed a large collection of pro-SRA sources. here. This includes 31 peer reviewed journal articles, 11 book sections, 18 articles and 16 books. Several are from the last decade (these are listed above on this page). Most of these pro-SRA articles are either ignored or minimized at the present SRA page. I attempted to make minor changes to the page to introduce a couple of these sources and balance the page and was banned. The page has been controlled by those interested in making the page an extreme skeptical soapboax bashing the existence of SRA. Comparing SRA to Blood Libels and McCarthyism is propaganda at its worst. The page needs a major overhaul and objective editors to look at the page and rewrite it. I am hoping that wikipedia will work and an accurate portrayal of the literature in the field will be presented, not the joke that the page presently is. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the page does look pretty bad now. However, there are still no recent reliable sources indicating that anyone believes that ritual abuse is at all prevalent, or ever was. That does need to remain (or return) in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At least we agree it is pretty bad. If you look at some of the sources I list above, several are recent and are from peer reviewed journals. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a whole year without being given a chance to present any evidence in my defense. I would like to be able to defend myself in front of the wikipedia community with the full input of all wikipedia editors, since this is a serious decision that effects several wikipedia pages.

Decline reason:

You're very welcome to present such evidence here - that is what these templates are intended for. If you'd like wider input on things, we can certainly start up an ANI discussion and point people to your responses here. However, the checkuser evidence is pretty damning. It looks as though at least five other accounts all belong to you in an obvious attempt to get around your topic ban. Regardless if you think you're right or not, you are under restriction to remain away from those articles due to past disruption there. You clearly knew what you were doing, and have as yet given no valid reason why you should be unblocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For other admins and editors, this diff contains details of the terms of the topic ban and related discussion (since the toolserver AN search is, as always, useless for this), and the checkuser case relevant to this can be found here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Recent_systematic_push_of_fringe_theories_at_Satanic_ritual_abuse Satanic ritual abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is currently in horrible shape. It presents the clear majority view the Satanic ritual abuse does not exist as an actual conspiracy as a minority view. It busies itself with presenting apologetics in favor of the fringe conspiracy theory, much of it in an "absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence" fashion that likely violates WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. Some feedback and extra eyes would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I'd advise a few people to check out the contributions of Abuse truth (talk · contribs). I agree the SRA article is a joke at present - we've already had complaints about it on this noticeboard at least once before - but with the current crop of users editing it I'm not sure much can be done. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abuse_truth" Please see [7]. I've kind of got fed up with what's going on at the SRA article, as you've probably guessed. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Abuse_truth.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 Abuse truth (talk · contribs) This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talk page disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Abuse_truth.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 Abuse truth (talk · contribs) I think we'll need a bit more than that. This has been up at FTN twice, AN once - every time the contributions of Abuse truth are highlighted, every time we all agree there's a problem - and yet nothing happens. Now something finally has happened: the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

at the ANI page Actually, y'know something? This article has improved since the previous two times it's been up on this noticeboard. That awful list of "allegations" has gone from the main article, split off to elsewhere - have to monitor that, though, and NPOVfy - and the proposed split looks reasonably sensible, though one must be careful to avoid POV forks. Someone's been doing good work. If we are going to split the material up, though, care has to be taken that Ritualized child abuse doesn't become filled with all the crap that previously clogged up the SRA article. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) aka Abuse truth (talk · contribs) aka Abuse t (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focussing on child abuse in general and Satanic ritual abuse in particular. On the SRA article he has persistently pushed the point of view that SRA was/is "real" and continues to this day, when scholarly consensus is that SRA was nothing more than a whopping great moral panic back in the 80s. Despite blocks and multiple previous threads at FTN and ANI he has continued to cause problems for the productive editors on this page, whose mammoth patience is gradually being eroded.

I suggest that we, the community, ban ResearchEditor/Abuse truth from the SRA article, its talk page, and all closely related articles and talk pages. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

This admin obviously has an agenda to get anyone banned that edits the SRA article that doesn't agree with his POV, yet continue to edit it. He has successful kept me from editing the article to promote his own POV.

I would agree to an ANI discussion provided I would be allowed to post there. To have a discussion where I would only be attacked and unable to defend myself would be pointless.ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is too confusing. Can you please post diffs that prove that Moreschi and you were editing the same article and having a content dispute? Just him wanting to block or ban you does not constitute a dispute. Admins propose to block users all the time in the course of their normal administrative duties.  Sandstein  05:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--

OK, I'll try to make it clearer. I will pull quotes from the above diffs. I believe that the article should represent all of the literature in the field. Moreschi believes that the "scholarly consensus is that SRA was nothing more than a whopping great moral panic back in the 80s." I presented reliable sources to counter this. These were consistently deleted from the article. Moreschi complained on a variety of boards about my editing. Here are a few examples from the diffs above:

"I'd advise a few people to check out the contributions of Abuse truth (talk · contribs). I agree the SRA article is a joke at present."

"This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talk page disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed."

"the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process."

"I suggest that we, the community, ban ResearchEditor/Abuse truth from the SRA article, its talk page, and all closely related articles and talk pages."

It is obvious that A)Moreschi disagrees with my point of view on how the article should be edited and B) Several times proposed to have me banned from editing the article.

It is a clear conflict of interest, based on our diametrically opposed views on the direction the SRA article should go in, for Moreschi to take any sort of administrative action in this case. A discussion of any potential banning should have been brought to ANI for discussion, as was suggested at here "I am going to leave ResearchEditor unblocked, but recommend a ANI thread be started to discuss any possible violations of the above stated topic-ban. Tiptoety talk" Since I am banned from all other pages other than this one, it is difficult for me to look for any sort of remediation in this case. In other words, I am unable to defend myself and fight this ban. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The "evidence" presented against me is poor at best. The only "proof" is that the IPs were in the same city. With ten of thousands of people here, it could be anyone. Furthermore, the original blocking admin (Moreschi) has a definite conflict of interest, since his POV is the opposite of mine on the topic of SRA. This admin has a history of complaining about my posts and edits in the past. See the posts below for proof of this.

Decline reason:

The checkuser evidence was very conclusive when coupled with the similarity in contributions. Your block is based on this evidence - your unblock is therefore declined — Fritzpoll (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Above I believe that I have shown above that the blocking admin Moreschi had a conflict of interest when blocking me. He had a vested interest in blocking my POV from the SRA page. As per here "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist....administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Also, I have been unable to defend myself in front of the wikpedia community. As per here "Upon a request to seek arbitration, editing access may be restored to a limited number of other pages" I am requesting editing access to a limited number of pages so I can defend myself against this block here and make comments here. If this is not the right way to request being able to edit these two pages, please let me know how to do this.

Decline reason:

Do you intend to open a request for arbitration on this? That's what that quote from "appealing a block" refers to, not ANI or RFC. You are more than able to defend yourself here, as I've already said. In any event, your arguments so far appear to pertain solely to the assertion that the blocking administrator had a conflict of interest. Other admins have now reviewed this, and are endorsing the block. If you really want to make a scene of it, I'll unblock you and then immediately reblock you so that Moreschi isn't the top entry on your block log. Either way, it makes no difference. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

OK, How do I open a request for arbitration if I am unable to edit the page there? Can I be unblocked on that page only? "In principle, any blocked user may appeal their block to the Arbitration committee as a last resort, after other attempts to have the block lifted have failed....In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of filing an appeal." ResearchEditor (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Appeal

Hello ResearchEditor,

I have received your request for an appeal to ArbCom, and will be posting it (in a slightly different format) to the Requests for Arbitration page shortly. If the case is accepted for further examination, I will unblock you so that you may participate in the discussion (and only the discussion). I will return shortly with further information. — Coren ^(talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a request for the arbitrators to reexamine your block. You may want to watchlist this page for further developments. — Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 00:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Moreschi blocked for evading a page ban based on this RFCU. The original page ban was sanctioned here and though Moreschi started the discussion, many, many other editors weighed in and the consensus was ResearchEditor was a tendentious editor pushing a fringe point of view that was not supported by the mainstream scholarly opinion. The ban is a separate issue from the block, and Moreschi seems completely within his rights to institute a block for evading a community ban based on a valid RfCU. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that editor WLU is hardly an unbiased editor on this case. His extremely biased and one-sided point of view on the SRA topic is obvious.

from the SRA talk page

"We are required to report on topics to the extent and with a tone equivalent to the mainstream view of the topic discussed. Any emphasis on the credibility or reality of SRA is out of keeping with the majority belief that SRA is a discredited, if not embarassing part of the 80-90s. This has been discussed to death in the archives. If you do not agree with our policy on a neutral point of view you are welcome to contribute to another on-line venue elsewhere. You may be well served by reviewing this administrator's noticeboard - SRA is not a topic of mainstream interest and the page should not place any emphasis on source and text that gives the impression that SRA is perceived as anything except a moral panic. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)"

This point of view ignores a large portion of the research and promotes the views of a few extremists.

Moreschi should have excused himself from any administrative action in this matter, due to his

strong POV which is the opposite of mine on the topic, as shown above. This is a clear conflict of interest. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

None of which matters because I can't block or unblock, I'm merely interested in the full context of the block and ban being discussed. This is not about a content dispute. This is about you using sockpuppetry, possibly meatpuppetry, to evade a legitemate community ban. This is not about satanic ritual abuse at all. Are any of the statements I made factually incorrect? Were you not banned from those pages? Did a request for check user not come back with the judgement that based on location and editing pattern you appeared to be using multiple accounts to evade a community ban? That is what is imporant here. Have I lied or made any errors? No. So the block should remain. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually everything I said above matters a great deal. It clearly shows your motives, which are to keep anyone from editing the page with a POV different than yours. You have done everything you can to make sure that only editors sympathetic to your extremist biased one sided view promoting panic theory (which is a minority view in the literature) are allowed to edit the page. This definitely makes it a content dispute. This has been the reason all along for the various blocks and actions against my editing. And you made a very large error. Moreschi's conflict of interest was obvious as shown in the section above and he should have not participated in any administrative action against me. The entire history of manipulating the information on the SRA page needs to be fully investigated and the block should be removed. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)