User talk:Skoojal

Skoojal Talk Archive 1

Skoojal Talk Archive 2

Conversion Therapy Article

I posted the following on the discussion page:

"On your first point, I thought that the existing sentence made the proposition that "some in the ex-gay community believe that sexual orientation cannot be completely changed" appear to be a widely-held view within ex-gay circles, despite the fact that the only citation offered was a cite to a comment made by Alan Chambers in an interview. If anyone is aware of other ex-gay individuals or organizations that hold a similar perspective, please feel free to add some footnotes. I thought it was more accurate to state the majority ex-gay perspective (i.e. that sexual orientation can be completely changed) first -- citing to a variety of organizations that have expressed that view -- and to then make reference to Mr. Chambers' views. On your second point, I can understand your concern about that source. I have not been able to find a comparable source for the same proposition, so I deleted the sentence relating to bias against pro-conversion-therapy studies in academia. Hope that helps."

I did revert the sentence on complete change to sexual orientation and re-insert my footnotes. I hope you do not object.

SCBC (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying; I'm not necessarily going to revert immediately, because you probably have a point about the use of Chambers as the source; I'll consider this. Skoojal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AR

Let's work towards consensus on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained the edit at the CfD page. Please see WP:CAT for more information on how to use categories. Specifically: " Normally articles should not appear both in a category and a "parent" of that category;" per Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also be aware the undoing edits over and over may violate WP:3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the above messages. I wasn't familiar with the part regarding categories. I am familiar with the three-revert rule. Skoojal (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mileva Maric

Skoojal: You posted the following message for me, Esterson, 28 August 2008: >Hello Esterson, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sure that your edits to Mileva Marić were well-intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not think that your blog counts as a reliable source, so I have removed much of what you added. Please see the Reliable Sources guideline here[1]. Skoojal (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)<

Having checked the Wikipedia statement on reliable references, I see your point. However, let me try to explain why in this instance this results in a scholarly anomaly, in that published books and articles which are full of errors are referenced on the Mileva Maric page, while my articles, in which I have meticulously traced original sources to determine which are reliably documented, are disqualified.

Let me quote three Einstein specialists on my writings. John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected papers: "Thanks for sending your articles. I admire you for having the guts to go through the whole series of entangled falsehoods..."

Robert Schulmann, historian, associated editor, AE Collected Papers: "Dear Allen, looked again with some care at your sites, and am most impressed. Great work."

Gerald Holton (physicist, historian of physics): "I was glad to read of your interest in correcting the blatant perversion of the role of Mileva Maric in the Australian film, /Einstein's Wife/. The essays on your websites should be required reading by all who have been taken in by this film - the NPR officials, the unsuspecting readers of the story on the PBS website, the viewers of this pseudo-'documentary', the helpless teachers who might fall for this lie."

Note that the PBS "Einstein's Wife" documentary and website that are cited on the Wikipedia Mileva Maric website are condemned as a perversion of history by all three Einstein scholars, who were misled into being interviewed for the film. Yet that reference to "Einstein's Wife" is allowed to remain while my scholarly, fully referenced critiques, highly praised by the Einstein specialists, are disqualified. Do you not see an anomaly here, regardless of the "regulations".

Some more specifics: The Troemel-Ploetz (1990) reference is allowed to remain, but as I show in my critique of her article, it is an example of consistently poor scholarship. Do read the following critique and you'll see that I have demonstrated this to the hilt: http://www.esterson.org/Who_Did_Einsteins_Mathematics.htm

Most of Troemel-Ploetz's article consists of uncritically recycling unsubstantiated claims made in Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book *Im Schatten Albert Einsteins. Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric.* Both in my critique of Troemel-Ploetz, and in my article http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm I have examined all the claims about Maric in relation to Einstein's work and shown they are without substantiation. Yet, again, Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book is referenced on the Mileva Maric page, while my scholarly critique that exposes the consistent hollowness of her claims is disqualified.

As I say, I understand why you decided to disqualify my writings, but, given the praise I have received from Einstein specialists, and their denunciation of the PBS film that includes much erroneous material from Troemel-Ploetz and Trbuhovic-Gjuric, I urge you to read my two articles I cited above to see if in this case the editors of Wikipedia should not, in the interests of scholarly accuracy, consider relaxing the rule on reliable references. After all, both Troemel-Ploetz's and Trbuhovic-Gjuric's writings are allowed to be referenced, despite the fact they are utterly unreliable. (Trbuhovic-Gjuric, for instance, contains no notes, no bibliography, and its assertions in the text are almost entirely unreferenced.) Esterson (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Have you two editors met in another forum? If so, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: thank you for your concern that Esterson and I may have encountered each other before and that we may be enemies. We have, and we are, although the issues we have clashed on in the past have nothing to do with the article on Maric, and since we're both grown-ups, I'm sure we can behave sensibly. Esterson seems to have pretty much conceded my point about reliable sources. His past experiences on the articles about Sigmund Freud and Jeffrey Masson should have told him what happens when one tries to use one's blog as a source in this way. The fact that Esterson's conclusions may actually be closer to the truth (as is certainly possible) alas has nothing to do with the issue. Skoojal (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally cross-post, but the fact that you're editing topics with someone you call an enemy from off-wiki appeared to me to be an unusal circumstance, one which the other editor should be aware. Added to the Crews matter there's an appearance of using WP to settle scores. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. However, I don't think Esterson is completely naive. The only important issue is whether I'm right in what counts as a reliable source per the guideline, and I believe I am. Skoojal (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a warning. Can I ask which particular issue this warning is in response to? Skoojal (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I can guess. Skoojal (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in response to you repeated comments on my purported motivations. There's a saying around here: comment on the edits not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here, let me also inform you of another Wikipedia policy, WP:CANVASS. It's inappropriate to go around asking people to take a certain position. If you want to alert folks to a dispute in which they might have an interest it's best to keep the wording neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:CANVASS, thank you. I am not guilty of canvassing. I simply asked some people for input, not to take a particular position. I expressly stated in several cases that I did not necessarily expect them to agree with me. Kindly don't accuse me of breaking guidelines when I'm not guilty of doing so. Skoojal (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the statement. I didn't accuse you of anything. I was informing you of a relevant guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not doing something, then why tell me that it's inappropriate to do it? Skoojal (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted that so you'll know there's a guideline covering the matter. One thing that admins are expected to do is help with correcting new or problematic editors. I post notices on user's pages almost every day informing them of policies and norms that they may not know of. I figure if folks are properly informed they're likely to do the right thing on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

CT category

Let's see how the CfD goes and then we can sort it all out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of what articles should have the Conversion therapy category added to them should properly form part of the CfD. It has to be considered to see whether the category itself makes any sense. The time to address the point I raised is now. Skoojal (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and raise it at the CfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Esterson

Will Beback: Skoojal writes on the suggestion "we may be enemies": "...we are, although the issues we have clashed on in the past have nothing to do with the article on Maric."

I find it rather extraordinary to say we are "enemies" just because we had a difference of opinion, or rather, I expressed a view about the deletion of links to my website. (I don't recall the other instance, and I certainly didn't identify Skoojal as someone I had had an exchange with before.) As far as I'm concerned I was simply making a point I was concerned about. And as Skoojal says, I conceded that I understood the ruling.

>His past experiences on the articles about Sigmund Freud and Jeffrey Masson should have told him what happens when one tries to use one's blog as a source in this way.<

I really can't recall what this is *specifically* about, but I would just point out that most of the articles on my website about Jeffrey Masson are pre-publication versions of peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in "History of Psychiatry", "History of Pschology", and "History of the Human Sciences". (None of these journals allowed the published versions to be posted.) www.esterson.org Esterson (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call myself "Skoojal" the last time I encountered Esterson. Regarding the Sigmund Freud and Jeffrey Masson articles: over a year ago, Esterson added material to these articles sourced to his blog. It was removed (the edit Esterson made here [1] looks like an obvious attempt to use a biography of a living person to discredit him, and it may be of some significance to note that it was a probable BLP violation). Other material added by Esterson to the article on Freud didn't seem to have a real source; it was also removed. I toned down the rudeness of the comments about Peter Gay that Esterson added to the article on Freud here [2]; someone else eventually removed them entirely. Skoojal (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal writes in relation to the paragraph on the Jeffrey Masson wikipedia page that he removed: "It was removed (the edit Esterson made here [1] looks like an obvious attempt to use a biography of a living person to discredit him, and it may be of some significance to note that it was a probable BLP violation)."

Here is what Skoojal removed:

A less widely reported fact is that several researchers in recent decades have returned to Freud's papers and letters from the time and concluded that Masson is more fundamentally mistaken than his psychoanalytic critics claim. See, for example, two published articles rebutting Masson's contentions while challenging the received view that most of Freud's early patients reported having been sexually abused in early childhood: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm

How can a true statement that Masson's contentions about Freud's seduction theory have been challenged by Freud scholars in recent decades be "an attempt to discredit" Masson? (Is it impermissible to say that several Freud scholars have concluded that Masson's accounts are fundamentally flawed when that is a simple statement of fact?). Here are just a few examples:

Cioffi (1998 [1984]): "Masson is mistaken in holding that Freud based his conviction of the reality of the seductions on stories recalled and recounted by his patients... he is the victim of Freud's retrospective confabulatory or mendacious accounts." Schimek (1987): "the seduction theory had never been based on patients' direct statements..." Israëls & Schatzman (1993): "Masson attributed to Freud a version of the seduction theory that never existed." Esterson (1998): http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm; McCullough (2001): "Masson's book Assault on Truth [is] deeply flawed..." Eissler (2001): "Masson misrepresented the seduction theory in the identical way [that Alice Miller did]."

Again, Masson's general account of events is challenged here: Borch-Jacobsen (1996). McCullough (2001). Esterson (2002): http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm

These were all in reputable publications:

Borch-Jacobsen, M. (1996). Neurotica: Freud and the seduction theory. October, Spring 1996, MIT, pp. 15-43.

Cioffi, F. (1998 [1984]). From Freud's 'scientific fairy tale' to Masson's politically correct one. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 199-204.

Eissler, K. R. (2001) Freud and the Seduction Theory: A Brief Love Affair. New York: International Universities Press.

Esterson, A. (1998). Jeffrey Masson and Freud’s seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths. History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), pp. 1-21. http://human-nature.com/esterson/

Esterson, A. (2002). The myth of Freud’s ostracism by the medical community in 1896-1905: Jeffrey Masson’s assault on truth. History of Psychology, 5 (2), pp. 115-134.

Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M. (1993) The Seduction Theory. History of Psychiatry, iv: 23-59.

McCullough, M.L. (2001). Freud's seduction theory and its rehabilitation: A saga of one mistake after another. Review of General Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1: 3-22.

Schimek, J. G. (1987). Fact and Fantasy in the Seduction Theory: a Historical Review. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, xxxv: 937-65.

Skoojal also writes: "Esterson added material to these articles [Sigmund Freud and Jeffrey Masson] sourced to his blog."

In fact these are pre-publication versions of articles published in reputable history of psychology journals. (They are virtually identical to the published versions, which the journals would not allow me to post for copyright reasons.) Esterson (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that Skoojal is mistaken when he refers to my website as a blog. It is solely a website for posting articles by me, or in a few instances, by other writers or academics on the topics in question: http://www.esterson.org/

Wikipedia definition of a blog:

A blog (a contraction of the term "Web log") is a Web site, usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Esterson (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Esterson appears not to be proposing to reinsert material from his website into the article on Masson, it would probably be pointless for me to make a detailed reply to the above comments. I will note, however, that what goes into articles on living people is a very sensitive issue, and if Esterson does plan to add anything to the article on Masson, it may be a good idea to discuss matters beforehand. Skoojal (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of my text

Actually, Skoojal, you removed my comments on the Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers page. This may be a case of edit conflict.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your comments because you removed my comments first. The only reason your comments got removed was because they were added in a way that removed my comments. I undid that apparent vandalism. Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's resist the temptation to get melodramatic and overly-personal. I had no clue I deleted anything, and if I deleted something it was an accident. The problem we had was clearly an edit conflict issue at a time when Wiki servers were slammed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

3R Violation

I believe at this point we have reached or are about to reach a 3R violation. Please use the talk page so we can come to a consensus.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault FAR

Michel Foucault has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks! Lesgles (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Start of Allen Esterson Wikipedia page

Skoojal: There is no good reason for there to be an Allen Esterson Wikipedia page. I have no public profile, and am one Freud scholar among many hundreds, with only one published book to my name. I have never held a University post. I have checked some significant academics in psychology with several published books and scores of published papers to their name, and they do not have Wikipedia pages. There are many scores of thousands of people in scores of academics fields who have published far more than I who do not have a Wikipedia page. I have published only a limited amount on a very limited number of subjects.

Although, naturally, your first posting is objective enough, it is evident from your comments on the Frederick Crews Talk page, 1 June 2008, that your motives are far from impartial. Although I had made no contribution to the Crews Wikipedia page, nor to any discussions of it, you wrote a completely gratuitous offensive comment about my motivations. I quote:

"When I debated this with Allen Esterson, he told me that Crews was actually rejecting the theory that homosexuality was a mental illness, and indeed giving it as one example of the political influence on the DSM. I thought this was willful obscurantism on Esterson's part, motivated by the desperate desire to hide a truth that it would be disastrous for Crews's (and Esterson's) credibility to admit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_Crews

If you do not remove the Allen Esterson page immediately, I intend taking steps to have this entirely inappropriate Wikipedia page removed. Esterson (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson: with all respect, there is every reason for there to be an article about you. You are a notable writer. You happen to be one of the more widely influential Freud scholars. Your work has been quoted or used by several of the major figures in this field. Together with your contributions to the Mileva Maric dispute, that's enough reason for an article about you to be created. And in case you were wondering, I do not intend to insert outrageous or defamatory claims about you into it (even if I did, they would be swiftly removed, and I would probably be banned from editing the article further). Since I am not an administrator, there is no way that I can delete that page, and nor would it be appropriate to do that. Skoojal (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding my comments about you on the Frederick Crews talk page, I would not object if someone removed those. Remove them yourself if you wish. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Accusations

Stop accusing me of a BLP violation on the Christina Hoff Sommers page. Read the discussion page. Stop bullying. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not stop accusing you of BLP violation on that article. You are guilty. Stop your accusations of bullying. Skoojal (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

3R Violation

Please be aware that you are approaching a 3R violation on the Christina Hoff Sommers page, and notice will be given to a notice board.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are violating BLP on that article, and that 3RR does not apply to removing BLP violations. Skoojal (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Masson BLP

I do not know what to add. I do not understand your charges against Esterson. You seem not to understand Ikipedia's BLP policy or NPOV or V policy. Frankly I am not always sure aht you are saying. "All I'll say for the moment is that this is my impression of them, having read some of what they've written." is simply an unacceptable response to a request for evidence. "My evidence is that Esterson violated BLP." does not make sense - it appears you do not know what the word "evidence" means. You quote text Esterson added criticizing Masson's scholarly claims about Freud. Doesn't NPOV require us to add contrsting even conflicting views? How, exactly, does BLP prohibit adding one scholar's criticisms of another scholar's work? Please quote the exact sentence in the BLP policy that prohibits this, it cannot be your vague impression. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake - that was a direct attack against Masson. BLP prohibits this. It reads 'Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides' - Esterson was taking a side: his own side. And also, 'it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone' - his tone was neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Skoojal (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are valid scholarly criticisms of Masson, but that they have not yet been presented responsibly and neutrally? In that case, I would suggest - seriously - that you propose a way to add the criticisms in a way you feel would comply with policy. Think of it this way: if editors should resist adding content that promotes their own "side" doesn't it mke sense for us to strive to add content we don't agree with? Maybe precisely because you do not agree with the criticisms of Masson, you can figure out how to add them in a neutral way? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little reluctant to say exactly where I stand on this issue, because of the risk of descending into outright incivility. However, to be brief about it, I don't agree with either Webster or Masson. Of the two of them, however, I think it is Webster whose views are less accurate, so I am more sympathetic to Masson - but only in relative terms. I'm not opposed to a sensibly-worded, neutral addition of criticism of Masson, but that wasn't what Esterson did by any stretch of the imagination. If you think that criticism of Masson could be added in a more neutral way, it may be helpful if you'd say exactly where you stand. Otherwise it is not easy to know where neutrality lies. Skoojal (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me where I stand? It does not matter. And if you think it does, you do not understand our NPOV policy, and really ought to take a pause from editing Wikipedia until you do. Editors do not put their own views into articles. We do not put true or false views into articles, or accurate or inaccurate views into articles. We put in notable views that come from reliable sources. Skoojal, it does not matter whether you are sympathetic with Masson or not. And it is irrelevant - entirely irrelevant - that you think Webster is less accurate and your opinion should not even enter into this discussion. Even if you thought Webster's views were entirely inaccurate and false they should be included in the article. In fact, and I thought I was clear about this being my point, it is precisely those views we are unsympathetic to, that we think are inaccurate, that we ought to add to articles in order to comply with our NPOV policy. You seem either not to understand NPOV or to reject it. But NPOV is non-negotible, and as long as you do not understand it you disqualify yourself from editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments don't address the basic issue: Esterson added criticism to the Masson article in a way that took sides against Masson. He offered his interpretation or opinion about Webster and his work. That was the problem. You know, there was a good reason why I asked you about this: you're one of the few admins who actually has an interest in, and can be assumed to know something about, psychoanalysis. Will Beback admits to not reading the relevant books. DGG has not commented on whether he has read them. You at least have read them, I hope? If you have, it should be possible to have a discussion about the issue. Skoojal (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments do not address the basic issue: NPOV demands that we provide different sides. Yes, Esterson added a different side - Webster's side. That complies with policy. Your attempt to remove this material violates policy. Now, you say that Esterson added his own opinion about Webster - that is something altogether different, and there is no need to revert Esterson's entire contribution when you can simply delete the phrase in which he presents his own opinion. I and others have asked you to produce that phrase and instead you copied the entire section. Please be precise: where does Esterson express his own opnion and not Webster's? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson added material that obviously took sides against Masson. I could have tried to rework that material to make it more neutral, but that would have taken an effort and I wasn't sure how to do it. As a probable BLP violation, the simplest thing was to remove it rather than to try to make it more acceptable. What Esterson added started out with, 'An examination of the section in Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong in which he discusses Masson's The Assault on Truth indicates that his comments refer specifically to Freud's claims in his 1896 papers...' If you look at what both Masson and Webster wrote, those comments about Webster are obviously opinion/interpretation, not neutral statement of fact. If it is necessary to discuss the entire issue for this to be clear, then let us do that. Detailed discussion of the issue is needed to resolve disputes like this.Skoojal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding material tht obviously takes a side against Masson is precisely what our NPOV policy calls for. That Webster's work is entitled "WHy Freud was Wrong" means Webster thought Freud was wrong, right? So it is not Esterson "interpreting" Webster to say Freud was wrong, Webster really thinks Freud is wrong. That view has to be in the Masson article. To say that Webster is referring to Freud's 1896 papers sounds to me like a neutral statement of fact, how is it not? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is questioning whether Webster thinks that Freud is wrong. That's not the issue, and I'm a little amazed that you'd think it was. What is in question are the actual details of Webster's views, not the rather elementary point that he considers Freud mistaken. I've stated on Esterson's talk page that I'll offer a more detailed commentary on this. As for taking sides, BLP policy states that 'Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides.' Skoojal (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it will help your case considerably to be clearer about this: that you are not opposed to adding material critical of Masson, and being more specific about how exactly you think Webster's position was misrepresented. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Slurbenstein, there's no reason why I should be opposed to including criticism of Masson. Far from it: I don't see eye to eye with Masson at all. I am a Freudian after all. As for what I consider wrong about Esterson's additions, I'm busy writing my response to them. It will be several hours more before I post it to the Masson talk page. Skoojal (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

COI on Allen Esterson

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Allen Esterson, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, I do not have a close connection to anything I have written about in that article, and therefore do not have a conflict of interest. Skoojal (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Close connection" in this context includes prior off-wikipedia disputes. You have been counselled by at least two other editors to stay away. Frankly, the purpose of my adding the COI notice here is so that, if you persist, there will be no question that you have been warned -- so that there would then be no obstacle to your being blocked if an admin believes that your editing behaviour has been persistently problematic in re COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I had one argument with Esterson on one website. I don't regard that as significant. You would have had a point if I had been adding material aimed at discrediting Esterson, but I did no such thing. Skoojal (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• This issue elsewhere between you and Esterson is good enough to cause concerns re WP:COI Skoojal. I would recommend you avoid editing the article in future - if there is indeed inherent notability the Allen Esterson article will be kept and improved if not it will be deleted--Cailil ^talk 22:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Skoojal, just wanted to make sure you were aware I'd nominated Allen Esterson for deletion and invite your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Esterson. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me; I had noticed, however. Skoojal (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you with no expiry due to issues noted below, and I will not be advocating or supporting any lifting of this block until such time as you give an unequivocal undertaking not to continue your off-wiki disputes with various individuals, and to refrain from editing or causing any form of disruption on the articles related to these individuals. Your statements on your (now deleted) user page indicate an entirely inappropriate attitude to Wikipedia - this is not a venue for "fair game" attacks or making biography subjects "look bad" - that is not even close to right. It looks to me as if you have failed to respect several core policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, as well as behavioural norms such as WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. I have noted this block in the ongoing noticeboard discussion concerning you. I am sorry, but you appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for another web forum or discussion board. It isn't. Our goal is to be a serious and neutral encyclopaedia, and your agenda appears on the face of it to be inimical to that goal. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'm giving an 'unequivocal undertaking' not to coninue my off-wiki disputes now. As it happens, I haven't pursued any such 'dispute' with anyone off wikipedia for a long time. As for my on-wikipedia behavior: I'm perfectly happy to not edit 'articles related to these individuals' (I assume you mean primarily the one on Esterson) if that's considered not appropriate (I will refrain from editing the article on Butler too if you like; I have little interest in editing it in any case). In regard to your comment, 'Sounds to me like this user should not be editing those articles at all', I have already been effectively banned from editing the article on Crews, a ban I have respected. My statements on my now deleted user page therefore relate to a long-resolved issue. The admins who dealt with that at the time didn't consider it necessary to block me. Skoojal (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the admin noticeboard suggests that a period of mentoring may be appropriate, given the substantial gap between your stated purpose here and our policy base. Please bear with us while we discuss the best way forward. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If mentoring is appropriate, then let there be mentoring. In regards to my 'stated purpose' - that was part of a user page that was deleted, and is now visible only to admins. I'm not sure why that should be called my 'stated purpose' now given that that issue is over. I certainly don't see that as being my purpose at this stage. Skoojal (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was it ever your purpose? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you're asking that question. Skoojal (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to understand what you are planning to do now and in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What I plan to do now is to show that I am prepared to edit Wikipedia within the rules. If I must accept mentorship, so be it. Skoojal (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, you explained why you asked the question: you want to know what I am planning to do now and in the future. I can answer that directly. Skoojal (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No I asked, "why was it ever your purpose"? Can you answer that question please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments on my now deleted user page were there to explain my purpose, and why I had it. I explained that fully and in detail. Guy, in his comments above, didn't say anything about my having to make further explanations about this to be unblocked. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So you came here with the intent of breaking our rules in order to add negative information to biographies, but you refuse to say why, and you now ask us to believe that this is no longer your intent, despite no evidence of a change in behavior? Is that right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, we are trying to help you stay in Wikipedia, and contribute productively. The thing is, that some of the continued editing seems to indicate your purpose is as it was at the start--to carry on a crusade against a particular individual's views, and to test the limits of what is permissible. DGG (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Will Beback: No, I have not refused to say why I behaved that way. I have already explained that in great detail, on my deleted user page. It contains a full answer to that question. The reasons concerned my sexuality and my attitude to my sexuality. I am not sure why you would ask me to discuss such personal subjects further in an unblock request. Other admins will have to advise me on whether I should answer your questions or give a further explanation. Skoojal (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read the page and I don't see any answer regarding your initial behavior. When folks admit that they have come here in order to break the policies it's natural that their words and actions are scrutinized. I do see that you complain that other editors, Cailil and Kukini, should have undone your work. So you were not only breaking the rules but criticizing those who don't enforce them strictly enough. It's a very odd statement and while the candor is useful it still affects your credibility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by 'my initial behavior.' Please clarify. In my view, I offered a full explanation of everything I did in great (perhaps even excessive) detail. Skoojal (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To respond to DGG: I understand your concerns. They are not at all unreasonable. However, very little of the editing I have done recently has anything to do directly with that particular individual or his views. I did mention his name in the article on Esterson (and I grant that creating that article may have been a mistake), but not to say anything outrageous. His name has not occured at all in the discussion about the Masson article. I repeat that I respect the ban on editing the article about him. I am not currently interested in testing the limits of what is permissible. Skoojal (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are overstepping what is permissible; that's why your editing has been blocked. I am concerned about the aggressive way that you've interacted with other editors. The most recent example is in relation to Esterson. Previously it was with Jokestress and there are several complaints on your talk page from other users as well. Testing the limits is an activity that wears out the patience of other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Esterson, I won't be interacting with him any further on the article about him, as I have accepted that I shouldn't edit that article, and it will almost certainly be deleted anyway. There is a disagreement over the Masson article, but that can likely be resolved through negotiation. The fact that I managed to reach agreement with Esterson over the Freud article shows that compromise and reasoned discussion can prevail. Regarding Jokestress, that is an entirely different issue. It is also a complicated issue, and I wonder whether it has to be discussed in an unblock request? Skoojal (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Postings on Jeffrey Masson page

Skoojal: I have posted amended paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page. My reasons are given on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson#Esterson.27s_reply Esterson (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG seems correct to me that you are engaged in Original Research there, and I'm glad that he recognizes the problem. I will make a more detailed response. Skoojal (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

to be exact, I said that both parties were engaged in OR. DGG (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, possibly we both are. The point is that the issue is a rather complicated one, and it needs further comment (I haven't produced one because I've become somewhat distracted). I'd like to be able to comment on the Masson talk page, but will post my response here if necessary. Skoojal (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As you are still blocked, could you reply here to a question [3] I asked. You may be the best person to know if there are specific published RSs referring to the appendix specifically. DGG (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG: in regard to your comments about the Masson bibliography, I can do the work required (or could if I were not blocked), since I have a complete set of Masson's books and translations, including rare and obscure publications. That includes three different editions of The Assault on Truth, and two slightly different editions of When Elephants Weep. I do not know of any reliable sources referring to the postscript Masson added in 1998, and it is doubtful that any exist. There is a review published by Esterson on Amazon.com, but I don't know that that counts as a reliable source. Skoojal (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

I posted the following on the article's discussion page:

Skoojal: I have again revised this sentence. I think it is a stretch to say that the previous version of the sentence was a violation of WP:SYNTH in the first place, but I am attempting to remove any shred of doubt on the subject. If you have further issues with my edit, I would request that you let me know and/or make changes that you think will enhance the edit, rather than simply reverting it over and over again. Without this edit, this section of the article is misleading and POV, because it (absurdly) makes it appear that all pro-conversion-therapy voices agree that sexual orientation really can't be changed. This is why I have inserted the edit and made several changes to edit in response to your feedback. I believe that my most recent edit should completely address any good-faith concerns.

SCBC (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

re block

Hi Skoojal pursuant to your agreement to the conditional unblock as outlined in my discussion with JzG I will look for a mentor who will work with you - as soon as this is in place I'll post to WP:AN and unblock--Cailil ^talk 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is extremely kind and generous of you, and I appreciate being given a second chance. I agree to the conditions. Skoojal (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

How is the mentoring going? Will you be working on Freud again? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The mentoring has not started yet; I am still blocked. I will not be working on the Freud article for some time, since I have been placed under a topic ban for biographical material for at least six months. Skoojal (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please delete my user page

This is a request to any admin who may see it to please delete my user page. I don't want or need it any longer. I am not requesting deletion mainly because it now has "This blocked user is the operator of one or more abusive or block/ban-evading sock puppets" plastered over it, although that is an additional reason. You do not need that notice to identify me as the operator of a sock-puppet; that was admitted, is now on record, and was clear anyway.

(The notice isn't even strictly accurate, since my sock puppet, having been blocked itself, is not being and cannot be used to evade my block). Skoojal (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you'd been in discussion with user:JzG about returning under mentorship, and with a 6-month ban on editing biographies.[4] So not only did you evade the user block, but you also went around the tentative biography ban. In light of those actions, I would now oppose your return even with a mentor. However, if you wish to appeal your block to the ArbCom that avenue is still open. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above has nothing to do with my user page. What did you place it here for? If you don't feel like responding to my request, then don't, but don't place an unrelated comment here as if it were a response. Skoojal (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It concerns your future editing here. If you're not going to edit here again, what do you care about the user page? If you solemnly promise not to evade your block by editing Wikipedia again until the ArbCom lifts your block, then I'd be willing to delete your user page. Is that fair? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My user page contains statements about my views, opinions, and other aspects of my person, that I am not sure I want to be associated with any more. I have no particular desire to leave that as a memorial behind me. Deleting it would therefore be a kindness (and as I said, you don't need it to identify me as the operator of a sock-puppet, which is on record anyway). I am not sure what value you would place on my promises, or why you'd ask me to make one. Why support a continuation of my block if you think so much of my trustworthiness? Skoojal (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating. If you'd like to disappear from Wikipedia, you may exercise your "right to vanish". WP:VANISH. That's dependent on leaving and not returning. If that's your intention then I'll blank your user and talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to debate anything with you. I simply asked why you would value my promises, or believe I would keep them. It is incomprehensible to me why your deleting my user page would depend on my offering promises which you have no apparent reason to take seriously. Skoojal (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to reinstate your userpage and the sockmaster note. I'm doing that because, even today and yesterday, you were both IP editing and creating new sockpuppet accounts.

When we block you, that means that you need to stop editing. If you continue doing so, in a disruptive manner, you're showing disdain for Wikipedia's community norms and policies. If you aren't going to play by the rules, we'll block you to whatever degree is necessary to keep you from continuing to damage the encyclopedia.

If you want to talk to an administrator about mentorship and will abide by behavior guidelines, that's fine. Someone may work with you. But you have to Stop with the socks and IP edits. Period. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for detecting my sock puppets. That's very clever of you. Your identification of one of them wasn't right, however. I don't, so far as I know, have a "Lord Weird" account. I considered setting up something with a name like that, but never did (also, while I was sockpuppeting, I was not, for what it's worth, IP editing during the period you mention). As for your comments about my block: Will Beback indicated above that he intended to single-handedly keep me blocked, mentor or no mentor, unless Arb Com unblocked me. He did not explain how this stance was based on policy. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him? This needs to be perfectly clear. I am happy to follow policy and make constructive edits if unblocked, but obviously, if there is no chance of my account being unblocked, it's pointless telling me not to sock-puppet. Skoojal (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also pointless for you to sock puppet because I'm going to start rolling back your edits. Please find a different project. Further effort here will just be wasted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you feel like reverting entirely legitimate changes I have already made do feel free. Comment on that is hardly required. You could explain how your stance on my block is based on policy. Skoojal (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You've indicated that you don't intend to respect or follow the policies of this website. You've already been banned and you are no longer permitted to edit here. I don't know which of your illicit edits may be helpful or not. But if they were made by a banned user then they are not legitimate. Please just go away. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I will respect and follow the policies of this website if given a chance. My request for explanation was in regard to your apparent stance that you can single-handedly keep me blocked, whatever other admins may think, unless Arb Com unblocks. I do not know how this stand, if I have understood it correctly, is based on policy. Your comment about my being "banned" appears to be an error. I have been blocked, not banned. That is not the same thing. Skoojal (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from honoring your block. There's no need to keep posting on this page unless you're going to file an unblock request. Any edits beside that are in violation of this' site's policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Per your email - to clarify, Skoojal, a user is banned when any of the following is true:

• The Arbitration Committee issues a banning sanction in an arbitration case
• The Wikipedia community of administrators decide to ban a user under the community banning process (notified on the administrators noticeboard for incidents)
• Any administrator permanently / indefinitely blocks an account and no other administrator choses to override that block and restore editing privileges.

Arguing that you aren't banned right now is semantics and lawyering - you fall under the third category, until and unless you convince an administrator to release the block.

These situations are a little different - you could be un-banned from what was done already by any one admin's review and decision. If you're community banned admins aren't supposed to unilaterally unblock/unban, and if they're banned by Arbcom then admins have no authority to overturn that at all (though we have the technical means, it's not allowed).

But right now - you're banned. Again - if you want to try to work with an administrator willing to mentor you, nobody's stopping you from doing that. But you really need to stop until and unless that happens and someone agrees to unblock you and mentor and monitor.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I wasn't deliberately trying to lawyer - it appears that I simply didn't understand this point (going over the ban policy, I see that you are correct), and I appreciate the clarification. Skoojal (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please delete my userbox page

I request that an administrator please delete my userbox page at the link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skoojal/Userboxes. This information is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia does not need to store it for any reason, and I would greatly prefer that it not be stored. Thank you. Skoojal (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Request was perfectly valid. No problem! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock me

This is an informal unblock request. I am not going to use the unblock template. The case for unblocking me (subject to mentorship, and with whatever restrictions are deemed appropriate) is simple: I am willing to make positive contributions, and cannot pose any kind of threat to Wikipedia. I have no intention of engaging in any further misbehaviour; even if I did, it would be swiftly detected, reverted, and I would be blocked again. There is therefore nothing to risk by unblocking.

I'd like to add to this that, since my block was imposed partly (I assume) because of inappropriate comments I made about Will Beback, I'm prepared to apologize for that (and also to anyone else who may have been affected by my disruptive editing, which however was not deliberately disruptive - it was something closer to naive and over-enthusiastic).

I'd also like to request that someone either respond to this message, or else protect my talk page to prevent me from editing it if they honestly feel that such requests are inappropriate. Otherwise, you'll probably have me continuing to make unblock requests here for years to come, which won't make for a very appetizing spectacle.Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I got your email and see this here. It's late and I don't want to reply in detail, but I will follow up later this weekend. If you do understand what you did earlier, and are willing to avoid further misbehavior, this is usually something that administrators can agree on. Your awareness than if you edit abusively again you'll be reblocked is good - some people stubbornly think otherwise and think they'll get away with causing more problems.

I'll point Will at this discussion as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Skoojal was not blocked for comments about me. I'd urge him to reread the the reason given by the blocking admin and give a better self assessment. Unless he understands the problems that led to his block then I'm afraid that similar problems would recur. The threat to keep posting unblock requests until one is granted was probably meant as humor, but it's not particularly funny. Previous unblock offers were contningent on finding a mentor and avoiding certain topics. I don't see anything about that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The main reason given for my block was "disruptive editing." I think I know what "disruptive" means. I have no plans to engage in anything that could be considered disruptive. If I don't understand the problems that lead to the block, please explain them. I noted in my unblock request that I'd accept mentorship and edit restrictions. I wasn't "threatening" to post endless unblock requests - I don't see how my comment about that counts as a "threat." But so long as I am blocked, what else am I to do with my talk page but make unblock requests? In the end, one of two different things is going to happen - either I will be unblocked, or it will become clear that I have no chance of being unblocked. In the latter case, there is no reason why I should be allowed to edit my talk page or send e-mails. The situation needs to be resolved one way or another. Skoojal (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Given sockpuppetry (Diamondlung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Devil Goddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taste of Tears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lord Weird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all checkuser confirmed) and an off-wiki campaign against some Wikipedians, plus the lack of understanding of the problems leading to the block itself and serious concerns raised by numerous admins (OTRS folks can also check the otrs-en-l discussion in respect of Simon LeVay), the answer from me has to be no. And I would say a categorical no to any unblock without first consulting Alison. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit to all of the sock-puppetry, with the exception of Lord Weird. Why Checkuser listed that as one of my accounts, I don't know. I never set up such an account deliberately, though I suppose I might somehow have done so by accident (the other possibility is that an innocent editor has mistakenly been blocked). I do not have a password for that account. Clearly the sock-puppetry was a mistake, but the purpose was to try and find a way of making constructive edits.

If I don't understand the problems that lead to the block, then please explain them. Also, I'm not sure exactly what the difference is between a "no" and a "categorical no." Please clarify. The ambiguity of this is frustrating. I certainly don't have any other sock-puppets, if that's what you're worried about. Skoojal (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody sets up a sockpuppet by accident. It is less than a month since you were last evading your block. The request for unblock is declined. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I can see that you don't believe me and maybe I can't change your mind, but yes, if I set up the Lord Weird account, it was indeed an accident, because I never intended to do that. Wikipedia's system is extremely complex, and it's easy to do something by mistake. Since I don't have a password for that account, I could never have used it to edit.

You note that it's less than a month since I evaded my block. I suppose that is a fair enough reason for not unblocking me at the moment. Should I wait longer before requesting unblock again? If I came back here late in 2009 or early in 2010, and there has been no sock-puppetry in the meanwhile, would you be willing to consider unblocking me then? It's a serious question. I address the same question to any other admins following this discussion, because I'm still looking for clarification of how or if I might be unblocked. Skoojal (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

I'd really like to ask that I either be unblocked or else told that I absolutely, definitely, will never under any circumstances be unblocked. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that the issue be settled. If I am being asked to do anything or accept any more restrictions before being unblocked, then I'll do it and accept them, whatever they may be. The suspense and uncertainty of all this is really starting to frazzle my nerves (I understand that it's useless at this stage to point out that I can make good edits, but even so, I can't resist observing that I am the only editor on Wikipedia who understands what needs to be done with the article on conversion therapy. Few of the other editors who are interested in that article have much of a clue, in my frank opinion. You may wait a very, very long time before you find anyone else who knows what changes need to be made there and is willing to spend the time making them). Skoojal (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since your edits to conversion therapy appear to be agenda-driven I think we can do without them, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If my edits to conversion therapy were agenda driven, then I challenge you to undo them right now, if you have not already done so. Agenda-driven edits should be reverted (the fact that I made some of them while blocked would also be grounds for reverting). The truth is, I was simply trying to make that a better article, and to some extent I succeeded. I cleared out an enormous amount of misinformation, original research, and off-topic information that belonged in different articles. No one challenged that material in any way until I decided to remove it, which I did very quickly and without seeking consensus. Nobody reverted me, or restored any of what I removed. I guess being bold pays off in some cases.

More recently, using one of my sock-puppets, I started including obviously relevant and useful information that should have been in the article but which no one in the world except me appears to have any interest in adding. The reason why I behaved so differently from all of the other people who take an interest in that article is that unlike them I'm actually interested in conversion therapy itself, especially its roots in psychoanalysis, not currently a fashionable subject. Most of the others appear to be more concerned with the ex-gay movement, which while it overlaps with conversion therapy to some extent is definitely not the same thing, as the article falsely implied. Skoojal (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you seem to be under the impression that someone (or some group) on Wikipedia can act unilaterally and tell you that you will never be allowed to edit again. That is not the case. Even if every admin currently on WP *and* ArbComm somehow decided to permanently ban you, that decision could still be overturned in a month. That's part of how WP:CONSENSUS works.

However, given your stance on certain subjects, and how close that stance comes to WP:OR, and given your reluctance to understand why you were blocked in the first place, and given your belligerent attitude in the discussions above, I (personally) do not approve of unblocking you or allowing you to continue to edit the project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, SatyrTN. Believe it or not, I actually find that helpful. Your comments about my "stance on certain subjects" are unfortunately too vague for me to be able to respond to them. Regarding my reluctance to understand why I was banned in the first place: I've repeatedly asked people to explain this to me so that I can understand. Oddly, no one is. Skoojal (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A Message to All Admins: REVERT MY EDITS!

OK, admins. Do you want to enforce policy? Then revert the edits I made while blocked. All of them. Every single one. Do it now. I made these edits not only while blocked, but also while banned, and you are failing to enforce policy by not reverting them. WP:BAN clearly states that, "By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." So enforce the damn policy and revert me, especially the edits I made to BLPs. And JzG, if you're serious about how my edits to conversion therapy reflect an "agenda", then I would once again urge you to revert them. Thanks. Skoojal (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)