User talk:OTTresearcher

WP:MEDRS
For medical content, we should use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean.

Also see WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know and linking that for me. OTTresearcher (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

 * to and it surrounds this controversy. You have a conflict of interest that you have not declared related to the Pedophilia controversy in Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert anything that they have edited.
 * Thanks, Berean Hunter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * * I don't understand why I've been blocked for those edits. How is it ethical to state only one side of the "curability" of pedophilia? Especially by one researcher vs the scientific community? By only stating one point of view isn't that being bias? OTTresearcher (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "..by stating that I'm part of the research community on forensic sexual crimes." Please address my concerns above. "You have a conflict of interest that you have not declared related to the Pedophilia controversy in Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre." Wikipedia isn't the place for fringe theorists to advance their theories. You may do that elsewhere and try to gain acceptance among the scientific community. Also you have to disclose who is paying you.


 * thank you for your response! I've read the COI and am not a paid editor on Wikipedia. I guess my COI would be that I've attended a few of the conferences that address pedophilia and/or sexual offending? I've read articles supporting and questioning the treatability of pedophilia/pedophilic disorder as well...? It seems like there are mixed views on treatability of pedophilia itself, but there's evidence that treatment outcomes for sex offenders positive.

Thanks for bringing up the fringe theorists - had no idea what that was, but I'm not furthering my own theories. Just stating what's been done and what's out there. I could also cite other sources that question whether pedophilia is "untreatable" or "incurable" - to show that these aren't my own theories? (Totally not being snooty, just very confused and appreciate the direction and feedback I've been given) Recent meta-analyses have shown a significant reduction in recidivism after treatment. Of course, that is limited by the fact that there are various treatment options available so it is unclear whether just the behaviour is being treated or whether the pedophilic interest is being treated. Not only that, but samples of adult sex offenders and child sex offenders are often mixed, and it is unclear whether some of the child sex offenders were diagnosed with pedophilia.

I'm just pointing out that the underlying tone of the (current) article on treatment is that it is untreatable. It would be more accurate to say that researchers are still investigating treatment outcomes and that prevention strategies have begun. If I were to follow the WP: MEDRS guidelines, then there haven't been any meta-analyses that have been conducted on pedophilia specifically. However, following the WP:MEDRS guidelines, I'm not sure why Seto's opinion is the only one stated as it does not appear to be the consensus of the community? Further, the article also states that "future research could develop a method of prevention" (that article was published in 2002 - we are now in 2019 where the research has advanced to preventive efforts - such as the Lucy Faithful Foundation's Stop It Now!). Nothing against those authors, just that I'm not sure why some articles are included when they are not in congruence with WP:MEDRS. Did not realize there was a ROMHC controversy article as well - thank you for linking. I'm not sure what I should do at this point, asides from stating that I'm not a paid editor. But if I'm going to be banned for correcting a bias, then all I can really do is accept it.OTTresearcher (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not affiliated with the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre?


 * Someone I know is a patient there (not for sexual behaviours) and I was visiting the ROMHC frequently. I don't know if that would count? I was using the Internet there (they have a library open to the public) and bought food from the cafe.OTTresearcher (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to #4 bullet 1, "The disclosure of actual checkuser data (such as IP addresses) is subject to the privacy policy, which requires that identifying information not be disclosed except under the following circumstances:


 * With the permission of the affected user;"

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I have your permission? The only way that I may discuss that with you is with your permission.

OTTresearcher, the Michael C. Seto source is a review article. It's the kind of source that WP:MEDRS prefers. And the "Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention (2nd edition). American Psychological Association." source is an updated second edition of it. It's not simply Seto's opinion that there is not yet a cure for pedophilia and that there may never be one. It's a fact. The view that there is a cure or that it may be cured is a fringe view, as made clear in the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre article. Berean Hunter, thanks for pointing to that article. Pinging Doc James and James Cantor so that they are aware of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay if I refuse just for privacy reasons. Again, I'm sorry that I didn't carefully read the rules. I really did not know that you were not supposed to directly edit the article itself and were supposed to use the talk page. I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I've only learned what a fringe theory was when Berean Hunter led me to that article. To be honest, this experience is distressing. I really don't mind if you just keep me banned as I value my privacy a bit more. It was an honest mistake. I did not know about The Royal article controversy until Berean Hunter linked that article. I'm very sorry for the trouble that I've caused. And Berean Hunter, thank you for being helpful with this process (I mean it). This was definitely a learning experience. OTTresearcher (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Yes, you may "refuse just for privacy reasons" but I'll mention that the address I was looking to discuss wouldn't have been considered one that was private to you specifically if what you have stated previously was true. And yes, you may choose to remain blocked as well. If another admin has not declined your unblock request above when you read this, you may ask to withdraw it.