This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ssbohio (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 8 January 2008 (→Adult-child sex: Err, I wasn't discussing it there, by any English-language understanding of the word ''discussion''). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:23, 8 January 2008 by Ssbohio (talk | contribs) (→Adult-child sex: Err, I wasn't discussing it there, by any English-language understanding of the word ''discussion'')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Attempting wikibreak To paraphrase Kelly Martin, if you're looking for drama, Encyclopedia Dramatica is that way.
Welcome!
Hello Ssbohio, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente 19:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Archives
Archive through 12/31/2006 Archive through 06/30/2007
Justin Berry
Discussions regarding Justin Berry and related topics go in User talk:Ssbohio/Justin Berry.
LtWinters & Heesham
LtWinters & Heesham-related topics go in User talk:Ssbohio/Heesham
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
WikiProject Furry
| Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.
Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing! You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
 |
WP:CVU status
The Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCN
Hi there. Your two recent reports of usernames to WP:RFCN were of users that were blocked in 2005. Please check that the users aren't already blocked before reporting them. Also, both usernames are blatant violations and could be reported to WP:UAA. Regards, Flyguy649 contribs 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that! I looked for the usual block/ban messages on the user/user talk pages, but I didn't think to check the logs. Thanks for clearing up my mess for me... :-) --Ssbohio 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it's no big deal. Flyguy649 contribs 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Re: John McMullen (broadcaster)
Unprodded. I still think that he does not meet WP:NOTABLE. Perhaps you should try to source the article, find some secondary sources, ... -- lucasbfr 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Docklands Light Railway
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Docklands Light Railway. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Canterberry 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A friendly word. Misplaced Pages works by consensus. This means that articles require a majority of the editors to agree on the content. Your recent attempts to add some contentious text should have shown you that there is a consensus that this text is unsuitable. If you continue to insert this text, the same result will occur ... it will be removed. Last word ... you have tried three times, and failed. Misplaced Pages operates a "three strikes" rule (WP:3RR), so if you add it in one more time, you will find yourself receiving further warnings and a possible blocking of your account. Canterberry 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your words constitute an unfriendly and false accusation. First, you accuse me of POV editing. Plainly, the facts don't support your insinuation that I don't know our core policies. Until you made your edit, only one editor had objected to the use of the word "embarassing." That is hardly a lack of consensus.
- You go on to imply a WP:3RR violation when you made your warning more than 24hrs since my first edit, thus outside the strict limits of the rule. Either you don't understand the rule or you're deliberately being disingenuous in your "warning." Your tendentious and false accusations here decrease my faith that you're trying to achieve consensus rather than intimidate me into allowing the article to be less accurate than it otherwise could be. Any further communication between us is contingent upon a change in your approach from attacking my work to consensus building. --Ssbohio 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- You were well on your way to a WP:3RR violation, and I don't care about whether it is within the 24 hour limit, three reverts is still three reverts, and constitutes edit warring which ever way you slice it. As for the WP:NPOV the use of a emotive word such as "embarrassing" is always likely to end up with an argument. Any editor with any experience of WP would know this and avoid it. Reading some of your "waffle" on your user page, it seems quite clear that you have an opinion on everything, and like to express it. Frankly, I have better things to do than write essays on everything and anything that enters my head. Canterberry 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- You were well on your way to a WP:3RR violation, and I don't care about whether it is within the 24 hour limit, three reverts is still three reverts, and constitutes edit warring
- The 3-revert rule is written in plain language, and its plain language overrules your opinion about what it says. If you'd like to allege further policy violations, take them to an admin. See how far your assumption of bad faith gets you there.
- As for the WP:NPOV the use of a emotive word such as "embarrassing" is always likely to end up with an argument. Any editor with any experience of WP would know this and avoid it.
- When I see the words "always" or "never" in a statement, I suspect hyperbole. An embarrassing incident is one that makes a person or organization look bad, but doesn't do actual damage. Trapping the reigning Monarch of your nation in a railway carriage is embarrassing in the same way that water is wet. It's not a point of view, it's just common sense.
- As to my experience, I've been doing this for a few years and, whild I do make mistakes, I have a pretty solid grasp of our core principles. You've been doing this since 25 April, with fewer than 1000 edits, and fewer than 700 mainspace edits. Here are some of your highlights:
- 25 April you transferred part of the article on the Lea Valley Line to a seperate article on the Chingford Branch Line. 26 April another editor undind your changes and you in turn reverted him twice You then threatened the editor with WP:3RR on his talk page (much as you've done here) and denegrated him for being an IP editor. By your standard above, you violated the 3RR.
- 26 April you described various of your own edits as a MasterClass in how to produce maps, a work of art, & I amaze myself sometimes at how good I am. Such hubris is unbecoming.
- 30 April - Described other editors' work as appalling & unacceptable
- 3 May - You decided to stop contibuting, but came back on , making up a position for yourself.
- 12 May you go after User:82.45.163.4 again, reverting his edit, denegrating him for not being a registered user, describing his good-faith editing as vandalism, and hereby issuing him a warning, just as you previously did with User:24.161.102.39. Very friendly way to approach others.
- 13 May, you falsely claim that a criticism of your actions as an editor is a personal attack and remove it, as you did with a warning of sockpuppetry. You go on to defend your assumption of bad faith on the part of IP editors.
- 17 May you reverted an edit, calling that editor's contribution pointless, again describing good-faith editing as vandalism and describing the editor's contributions as UNACCEPTABLE.
- 17 May you accuse an editor of spamming and canvassing for asking you to consider uploading images to Commons instead.
- 17 May you reverted Mpk's good-faith edit, and issued him a warning.
- 23 May you again reverted when someone objected to your forking content into a new page on the Shepperton Branch Line.
- 30 May - You reverted as vandalism (using the undo tool) a good-faith edit by Ferstel, describing his contribution as an unnecessary edit, which is not substantiated. Ferstel later complained to you, to no avail.
- On 31 May - You erased your talk page, removing evidence of others' concerns regarding your civility and removing a warning about an improper edit.
- You were well on your way to a WP:3RR violation, and I don't care about whether it is within the 24 hour limit, three reverts is still three reverts, and constitutes edit warring
- I think my review of your first month as a Wikipedian is sufficient to demonstrate the tendentious nature of some of your contributions here. Aside from those, you've made a wealth of worthwhile contributions. I'm still open to discussion and compromise, as long as you alter your approach from one of attack to one of cooperation. It's all up to you. --Ssbohio 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleting edit
Unfortunately, the same vandalism keeps recurring, probably from the same vandal. The main thing is catching it quick and reverting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I just want to congratulate you for your opinions on the article adult-child sex. I don't mean to imply by this in any manner that you support or believe in adult-child sex. I just want to thank you for helping Misplaced Pages become a real encyclopedia —one whose content is not determined by prejudices nor hate. A.Z. 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your congratulations. However, because of the contentious nature of this subject area, I'll make my view plain: there is no case I've ever seen made in favor of adult-child sex that has swayed me in the least. I remind myself when editing here that I must defend against passion in editing this encyclopedia. Adult-child sex happens, and it is at the focus of very great passions in American society (which dominates Misplaced Pages).
- Sometimes, I fear people will look at my work on this issue, particularly on Justin Berry and presume I have some kind of a pro-pedophile position. I explicitly oppose adult-child sex and wish there to be no mistake on anyone's part about that. --Ssbohio 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great post. Can I state my view as well? I've never seen a case made against adult-child sex that has convinced me. In fact, I think the only case against adult-child sex that I've seen was arguing that children were unable to consent to have sex. It doesn't seem like that to me. They are able to consent to have sex with other children, and they do it all the time, and that is only natural. Many of the thoughts of children having sex with adults disturb me, but I don't see why this wouldn't be due to factors other than the fact that they're a child and an adult. It seems easier to think of adult-child sex as abusive than to think of adult-adult sex as abusive, perhaps because it is so easy to abuse a child. It could also be that I am under the influence of a prejudice. I can, however, picture situations in which sexual relations between children and adults are positive for both parties. For instance, when Shane got a hand job from a prostitute, he was happy about it, and he told his friends at school about it. I don't know if children younger than 8 or 9 would be any interested in having sex with adults, though. I wish I could use my own memories to try to find that out, but I can't remember whether at that age I felt sexually attracted to older people or not. At 10, I certainly did. I also don't really know if you need to be sexually attracted to someone in order to have a sexual relation. I know that in some places parents masturbate their children, and I don't know whether this is considered a sexual relation or not. It's certainly positive for the child, though, and there would be no problem with the one doing the masturbation also enjoying it. Back to attraction, I haven't seen anyone proving (or attempting to prove, for that matter) that younger children never feel attracted to adults. Thus I don't have any basis to condemn those who advocate the abolition of the age of consent, and not to consider their movement a valid one. It also seems to me that there are many good-faith reasons why many people wish to continue having an established age of consent, and there may even be good reasons for it. I don't know if I would actively support and participate in the "pro-pedophile" movement, though, except to support bringing the age of consent down to 10, which I think that would be positive, and for increasing people's acceptance of people as young as 10 being able to have sex with people of any age. A.Z. 05:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- For me, the assertion that adult-child sex is an acceptable practice is a non-starter. A prepubescent child is physiologically and psychologically immature, as well as being almost wholly dependent upon the network of adults in his or her life for material and emotional well-being. I have seen nothing (and further, I can imagine nothing) that would convince me that such a child is in a position to make a freee and informed decision to consent to sexual relations. Let's say there is one child mature enough to give informed consent, and one adult pure enough not to take advantage of that child's nature: would I, then, alter my opinion? No. Even granting your premise, logic dictates that I'd have to assume that the number of such positive and irreproachable adult-child pairings would be infinitessimally small. Just as the speed limit is set considering the needs of the vast majority of drivers, rather than the small number who may be safe driving at 100 miles/hr, the age of consent needs to be set to provide a safe environment for the vast majority of children, even if it takes license with the liberty of the very small number who may be able to fend for themselves. Ages of consent between 14 & 16 appear to have a plurality of support among nations. I have no objection to such ages, but your proposal that the age of 10 be adopted in their place is beyond my comprehension. Ten? Seriously? Forgive me, but I find the idea incredible. --Ssbohio 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're assuming that a lot of maturity is needed in order for a person to give informed consent, but I don't think it necessarily is. You can offer many types of food for a child to eat, and the child will choose only the foods that taste good, and refuse the foods that have a bad taste. So the child will give their consent for you to give more of the good tasting food to them, and refuse to consent to eat more of the bad tasting food.
- The information that the child needs to know in order to make this decision and consent or not consent to be given the food is how the food tastes. Of course, the child may not have all the information needed in order to decide whether to eat a food that has a certain food additive or not. In this case, they are unable to give informed consent, because the child is not intelligent enough to understand all the consequences or eating and not eating food with food additives. So someone with more intelligence needs to make this decision for them.
- Likewise, I think an adult willing to have sex with a child could start foreplaying with the child, and this adult should be able to evaluate whether the child's response to this is positive or negative, just like with the food.
- I don't think most very young children would have the intelligence and maturity needed to choose to have a relationship such as that of boyfriends, nor do I think a very young child is likely to have the maturity and intelligence needed to decide whether they should get married or not. But choosing to have sex or not seems to be an instinctive choice that doesn't take maturity nor intelligence for one to make. A.Z. 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Sourced statement on adult-child sex
You said "restore sourced statement that adult-child sex fits the definition of child sexual abuse." I had tagged the article, then I created a section on the talk page to address this issue. No one made any comment, so I removed the sentence. Why don't say your opinion on that section? A.Z. 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize. Had I seen the talk page section, I would have let you know my rationale for restoring the text. As it is, I improved the reference by including a verbatim quote from the source document. In any regard, the statement is directly sourced to the document published by the University of Pennsylvania. I'm happy to discuss it further, but, while it's being discussed, I believe the statement should not be removed. --Ssbohio 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's now a deletion review
I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge consensus
This shows I am not alone in believing consensus was achieved and has been achieved. Please can you comment on why you think it shopuldn't be merged, I don't base my arguments on attacking you or why I believe you are whatever and you shouldn't do so either, its certainly nmot the kind of argument that is taken seriously on wikipedia. First night with internet in the house (the office is only 15 yards away but it is in another building) and this happens. Sigh, SqueakBox 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The comment you cite is one of the five who lined up to agree with you before you invoked cloture less than 24 hours into the discussion and made the merge. Unlike Flyer22 above, you made no effort to make sure that interested parties knew about your latest attempt to do away with this article. If my mother had had emergency surgery today instead of Thursday, I might never have seen what you've attempted. As it is, when 10,000 characters disappear from an article on my watchlist, I'm liable to take an interest. You based your argument on begging the question and running a short discussion with a paucity of participation, then doing exactly what you have agitated to do all along. You compounded that by slapping me in the face and addressing my contribution of the article as unworthy of your consideration. Do I have a problem with your personal conduct? Absolutely. I came away with the feeling that (for the first time since we've been dealing with each other) you were being rude, arrogant, disingenuous and utterly dismissive. Is that why I reverted your deletion of content from this article? Absolutely not. There was no consensus for your proposal at AfD, no consensus at DRV, etc. Saying there is now a consensus to do what you've been proposing for a while now in multiple fora and lining up 5 editors who agree in a "discussion" that closed less than 24 hours after it opened does not (in & of itself) establish consensus. --Ssbohio 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The number of words that disappeared numbered less than 50, the rest were merged into the CSA article, and this discussion has gone on since adult-child sex was at rfd. Given the creator of the article subverting the rfd was banned in part for his creation of said article IMO it is absolutely essential that we back the arbcom on this one with a quick merge. And my behaviour on this has been entirely reasonable and based on consensus throughout. I neither slapped you in the face nor removed more than a few words of your content from wikipedia as the rest I merged into CSA. There clearly is a current consensus for merging in rfd, afd, drv and the talk page and the only place you can try to change that is on the article talk page, SqueakBox 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AFD closed as Keep not Merge. You claimed that the closure was wrong at DRV and you were rebuffed. At the very least, you should accept that the consensus you see there isn't the consensus that was determined procedurally. The process went against you. Whether the content of this article is merged elsewhere or not, at least you can agree that you deleted content from this article, as I stated. That's a plain fact. The slap in the face came when you dismissed me as not being a serious contributor to this article. IMO, it is absolutely essential that we use the consensus-building tools in the project rather than attempting to press any one solution regardless of previous outcomes. If ArbCom wants this article deleted or merged, then arbcom can publish an opinion to that effect. Their decision shouldn't rely on our clairvoyance. Much as I agree with your motives, like it or not, your conduct is an issue. You believe you have consensus and you've attempted to enforce it by aggressive editing. I believe you lack consensus and I've acted to restore deleted content and reopen the discussion that was (in my view) terminated prematurely. --Ssbohio 04:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neither me nor many others wish to accept that, and indeed the closer said "Can be renamed or merged at editorial discretion", and we are not deleting any of the content. You should base merge arguments on whether a merge is appropriate not start quoting the afd and drv as if they forbid this, which they don't anyway. I don't see how the article can not be merged if that is the consensus solely because you oppose that consensus, SqueakBox 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- And it has just been merged again by another user, SqueakBox 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You've put words in my mouth. Editing changes to this article rely on consensus. Consensus is not established by ending discussion when you get the answer you want, nor by leaving opposing views out of the discussion. I haven't quoted the AFD or DRV as forbidding this, just as saying that there is No Consensus. No consensus ≠ consensus. Using a finding of no consensus to claim consensus is a curious bit of doublespeak on your part. Alleging that I've said things I haven't only further damages the collegiality between us as fellow editors. I'll gladly reiterate my rationale against merging, but I expect you to give some kind of notice to interested parties that you're trying to delete the same content you've been trying to delete in at least two other fora. Whether or not the content appears elsewhere, it's been deleted from this article. --Ssbohio 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec'd) So you are now reverting this against more than one editor and knowingly breaking 3rr. What are your arguments for this behaviour? Do you really think that this will help you achieve your goal? Especially as you have chosen so far not to give any cogent arguments about why we should not merge on the talk page. What I see is that making a merge more not less likely with your actions tonight, SqueakBox 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not breaking 3rr. I'm reverting what I take as a cross between vandalism and disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. My goal is to have a discussion. No discussion can take place in the face of unilateral aggression. You have yet to have a meaningful discussion of the issue, since you've so far insisted on keeping the discussion hush-hush and not informing anyone who has already made it clear they have a view to express, me included. My cogent arguments were already made at AFD and they appeared to have some support. Your end run around that process is not something to support. I will make my argument against merging tomorrow. I'm going to bed tonight. I have actual life & death issues to work out. This is trivia by comparison. I'd expect, at the very least, that you could respect that. --Ssbohio 05:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accusing 2 highly experienced users of vandalism isn't a very good 3rr excuse, and your claims I an acting unilaterally are evidently not true. We have argued this hugely as a project but I am happy to keep discussing based on arguments for or against merging. But I won't engage in arguments involving alleged vandalism, and while your arguments had support at afd so did mine at rfd, afd, drv and the talk page, so vandalism? SqueakBox 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- When process comes up withno consensus and you stop a subsequent discussion after less than 24 hours when it consists of five users who agree with you, then it is a form of vandalism in that knowing better is incumbent upon an experienced editor. You should know that this topic is far too controversial for a partisan to judge consensus on his own proposal to delete the article and replace it with a redirect when the AFD & the DRV both showed no consensus. If you want to build a consensus, then do so without giving short shrift to any opposing perspective and without unilaterally determining consensus and deleting the article. Unilateral, by the way, means "one-sided" not "acting alone." The word fits the situation There's more than one side to this question and you're acting from one of them. --Ssbohio 05:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly was not stopping the discussion. IMO your solitary opposition to the merge is not a reason to stop the merge, and your vandalism insinuations really aren't helpful to anybody. Actaully if there are sides then both sides supported the merge (eg Homologeo) but I don't really see this having been a case of sides, SqueakBox 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see my opposition as solitary, according to the AFD & the DRV. Perhaps if you opened the discussion up by asking other interested parties, it would have more representative content. I'm not insinuating vandalism -- deleting a page (even if it's replaced with a redirect) when no consensus was found (more than once in the last few days) is (to me) either a well-dressed form of page-blank vandalism or an attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. The "sides" I refer to are those favoring or opposing keeping this article. It's a binary choice. The article either exists or it doesn't. No matter how hard Tony Blair wishes, there is no third way. --Ssbohio 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Earlier tonight the merge consensus was 100% and I am still convinced that merge is the outcome we will see, SqueakBox 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Approximately one hen in 10,000 has two heads. If I select my sample carefully, I could "prove" that all hens are two-headed. The broader discussions completed just days ago did not show the consensus you suddenly found among a handful of editors to delete this article's content & merge it into CSA. Rather, it was the narrower scope of your discussion that allowed you to attain the consensus you sought. Open the discussion up & you'll get a more representative result. --Ssbohio 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Trying to claim you have the consensus in this way isn't a valid argument on wikiepdia given what actually happened and the current consensus to merge. The discussion is whether to merge, that isn't narrow and it is valid, ally uop can do is argue your point on the talk page, SqueakBox 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have NOT claimed to have consensus. Cite where I stated I did have consensus. If you cannot, then admit your error. --Ssbohio 07:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ssbohio, although you obviously believe you were doing the right thing, you did violate WP:3RR. You undid the merge 4 times, because you thought it shouldn't be done. You do not represent the entire AfD/DRV/RfD/{{mergeto}} process, so you do not get to be the sole arbiter of whether or not there has been enough discussion on the issue, and that purpose certainly doesn't give you permission to revert-war as much as you like. Mangojuice 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that you think I violated 3RR. I understand why you think I violated 3RR. I disagree. Lack of consensus to delete this article was amply demonstrated at AFD & DRV. To persist in deleting the article & replacing it with a redirect when the "consensus" to do so consisted of five editors in a discussion that lasted 23 hours, compared to the AFD & DRV processes that had already run, is, for an experienced editor either page-blank vandalism or disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Either way, what I did is what I felt the five pillars required of me. Why is it, in your estimation, that I can't make the determination whether there is a consensus to delete, but SqueakBox can? The only difference that's apparent is that you agree with what SqueakBox has been trying to do for weeks. What else is there to explain your deprecatory approach to me as compared to SqueakBox? --Ssbohio 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not you are empowered to interpret consensus and act on it is not the question: yes, you are, just as all of us are. However, the 3RR is there so that people, after a certain point, realize it is time to stop acting unilaterally and return to discussion. There are exceptions to the 3RR, such as when you are undoing simple and obvious vandalism (which this is not, not by a long shot, and even suggesting that it is violates WP:AGF). This is not one of those exceptions, so you violated the rule. Next time, open up the discussion at WP:ANI before it gets to the 4-revert point, and things will work themselves out. Mangojuice 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, just because AfD defaults to "keep" in a no consensus situation doesn't mean that editing can't proceed afterwards. Mangojuice 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I perceive a difference between the wholesale destruction of an article and the pastoral vision of editing proceeding afterwards. Do you? If there was consensus to Delete, then the AFD would have closed that way or the DRV would have reversed the Keep finding. An experienced editor acting directly against the result of Misplaced Pages process like AFD is, indeed, a form of vandalism. It doesn't take an extra bit to discern a lack of consensus when it couldn't be established in three attempts in little more than a week. While I agree that I would've been better off allowing the wholesale destruction of the article despite the lack of consensus, rather than boldly reverting it, I categorically refute the assertion that there was a policy violation in my actions. I do note that you have said nothing about SqueakBox's actions in this regard, preferring to focus the accusations on me. I'd hope that we're not at the point where user conduct policy is being used to enforce a point of view not supported by Misplaced Pages consensus-building processes. Even-handed application of policy is one thing; unilateral application of policy to serve other ends is quite different. 3RR is in place to support the five pillars, not to thwart their intent. This is a consensus-driven project. I agree with SqueakBox on most things. After the third re-blanking of the article, there was no more good faith around to assume. Besides, no one seems to assume what I did was in good faith. I'm being accused & pilloried in new and exciting ways every day. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not a drama. --Ssbohio 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- What I can say about SqueakBox is the following: he's been trying to resolve a tough issue. He acted in good faith in merging in the first place, based on not only the comments on the talk page at the time but the sum total of the prior discussion in which a lot of people expressed a preference for the article to be merged. The subsequent repeated reverts were not a good idea, but he didn't go beyond 3 like you did. And as for your first question: this is absolutely not "the wholesale destruction of the article" considering that basically all the article material was merged into the other article. Merging is not the same as blanking or deleting. Mangojuice 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- We've all been trying to resolve a tough issue. The difference is, I get castigation from you because of it, and SqueakBox gets what? Nothing? If you're taking an interest in conduct, take an interest even-handedly. If you're taking an interest in content, then don't use conduct as a proxy.
- Merging to CSA wasn't a majority opinion at AFD; It definitely wasn't the consensus opinion. After days at RfD, AfD, & DRV, no consensus to merge was reached. Suddenly, SqueakBox finds consensus in less than a day among a handful of editors. He left a whole bunch of people out of his last consensus-building process, and he (predictably) got the result he wanted out of it. At some point, we all have to look at the outcome of a process and accept that it didn't go the way we wanted. SqueakBox hasn't done that. He's gone to forum after forum after forum looking to have his way. I don't call that consensus-building.
- As far as merging/blanking/deleting, I'll say this: Consensus did not form to delete the article in any of the fora he tried. He then proposed a merge and acted on it less than a day later with a paucity of input from others and no notice to interested parties. How is it that you don't see that merging content into CSA required that content be deleted from adult-child sex? It's a deletion, incontrovertibly. He deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect. He could merge the content into ten other articles and he still erased the article we're discussing. Adult-child sex is a larger topic than child sexual abuse. Deleting the article on that topic in the face of repeated findings of no consensus to do so is, necessarily, acting without a consensus. Gaming the system by proposing a solution in forum after forum until geting the desired result is gaming the system by engaging in forum shopping. None of those actions are geared toward creating consensus where multiple reviewers have pronounced that none exists. --Ssbohio 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- What I can say about SqueakBox is the following: he's been trying to resolve a tough issue. He acted in good faith in merging in the first place, based on not only the comments on the talk page at the time but the sum total of the prior discussion in which a lot of people expressed a preference for the article to be merged. The subsequent repeated reverts were not a good idea, but he didn't go beyond 3 like you did. And as for your first question: this is absolutely not "the wholesale destruction of the article" considering that basically all the article material was merged into the other article. Merging is not the same as blanking or deleting. Mangojuice 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I perceive a difference between the wholesale destruction of an article and the pastoral vision of editing proceeding afterwards. Do you? If there was consensus to Delete, then the AFD would have closed that way or the DRV would have reversed the Keep finding. An experienced editor acting directly against the result of Misplaced Pages process like AFD is, indeed, a form of vandalism. It doesn't take an extra bit to discern a lack of consensus when it couldn't be established in three attempts in little more than a week. While I agree that I would've been better off allowing the wholesale destruction of the article despite the lack of consensus, rather than boldly reverting it, I categorically refute the assertion that there was a policy violation in my actions. I do note that you have said nothing about SqueakBox's actions in this regard, preferring to focus the accusations on me. I'd hope that we're not at the point where user conduct policy is being used to enforce a point of view not supported by Misplaced Pages consensus-building processes. Even-handed application of policy is one thing; unilateral application of policy to serve other ends is quite different. 3RR is in place to support the five pillars, not to thwart their intent. This is a consensus-driven project. I agree with SqueakBox on most things. After the third re-blanking of the article, there was no more good faith around to assume. Besides, no one seems to assume what I did was in good faith. I'm being accused & pilloried in new and exciting ways every day. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not a drama. --Ssbohio 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ssbohio, you cannot seriously claim I haven't been castigated for what happened last night nor that I got the result I wanted. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Squeak, I won't defend a claim I never made, so please stick to things I've actually stated. However, I can seriously claim that Mangojuice hasn't meted out nearly the ration of fertilizer to you that they have to me. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. There is an appearance of impropriety in the disparate treatment of two editors where one is in agreement on a content dispute and the other is not. Does the content dispute cause the disparate treatment? I don't think so, but it does raise the question. As to whether you've got what you wanted, this subject area is a fire you've stoked religiously for months now. You didn't get the deletion. You didn't get the redirect (so far). You did get the controversy and the drama. --Ssbohio 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude towards me is what I am referring to. IMO you have been castigating me far more than anyone has castigated you (castigar is Spanish for to punish). I was very much hoping to avoid the controversy and drama and it was A.Z. who stoked this fire, and not entirely alone(as you can reda from the CS and CAS histories), from the day it became a redirect' so to suddenly put the blame for all the controversy and drama onto me is simply not fair. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going down this road again. So, this time, point to where I've put the blame for all the controversy and drama onto you and I'll respond then. I can't see where I've done that.
- That's interesting about the Spanish verb "castigar." It's not too surprising, considering the Latin root of Spanish. Does it conjugate like other -ar verbs? The English connotation is more one of criticism than punishment.
- As far as my attitude toward you, let me be clear: I like you & I agree with much of what you do here.
- I take great exception, however, to your actions as an editor in this matter. You've treated process like a magic eight ball, coming back multiple times until the answer you wanted came up. That's the danger of establishing consensus based on a relatively small sample set. If you resample the population enough times, you can get any result you desire.
- You haven't addressed yourself to the substantive objections I've raised to merging this article out of existence, which makes working toward consensus a bit difficult. I want there to be an adult-child sex article that we can both be content with, because that title covers the topic more fully than does child sexual abuse. I've approached you on & off Wiki to come to an understanding with you on editing these controversial articles. I just feel like I'm not getting anywhere in my dialogue with you, and it frustrates me. --Ssbohio 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion claioms
Plerase point otu where I have deleted anything? or else stop making the claim, SqueakBox 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did. I provided diffs. You either AfD'd the article or you blanked it and replaced it with a redirect. Whether some of the content was merged into the other article or not, it was still deleted from the original article. Delete: Destroy, blot out, efface --Ssbohio 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) From WP:AN/3RR There was certainly not either deletion or gaming the system, please stop attacking all those editors who think differently to you, SqueakBox 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Attempting an end run around the lack of consensus you found in AFD & DRV is, to me, a form of gaming the system. I'm not attacking you as an editor; I respect you. I'm attacking your tactics and your intentions, because they rely on narrowing the participation in the discussion and forum shopping until you found an answer you liked. If you wanted to gain consensus, you could've invited participation as broad as that in the AfD or the DRV. Instead, you narrowed the field and got a more simpatico result. --Ssbohio 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I removed no more content than i would have in a normal edit tweaky edit, all the content went to CSA and so nothing was deleted and the page was not blanked it was redirected as per consensus, a consensus that is still currently so. And this was originally a redirect until A.Z. ignored consensus and debate to create an article, an act which is a part of what has led to his indefinite block. So you can't claim consensus anywhere on wikipedia and i suggest you give an argument on the talk page like everyone else is if you wish your opinion to be included. I don't believe your referring to what happened is a reasonable argument in the current situation given what actually happened in the rfd, afd and drv, SqueakBox 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The entire article was removed & replaced with a redirect. Wherever else you put the content, it was deleted from the article. Deleted. Not edited. Not tweaked. Deleted. Also, I'm not claiming consensus. I'm claiming you've been repeatedly told that you lack consensus to destroy this article. --Ssbohio 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't deleted from the project, though, which is what counts. Instead it was put in a much more visible article where it was much more likely to be read. Remember that none of us owns any article, or any content. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- It was, nonetheless, deleted from this article, which is what I've stated all along. You've disagreed with me, then refuted straw man assertions I never made. This constant attempt to put words in my mouth then argue against things I never claimed is wearing thin. I say you deleted content from this article. You disagree. Was there less content in this article when you finished with it? Yes. Content was deleted from this article. Q.E.D.
- The content was put into a much more narrowly-crafted article, one that only covers a portion of the topic. That's not an improvement, it is, like a power grab, an attempt to control where, when, & how this topic is covered on Misplaced Pages by aonly allowing the slices that fit into the article you prefer, despite its providing incomplete coverage. Remember that none of us owns any article, or any content. Thanks, --Ssbohio 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW I am responding to how I read your comments, please explain yourself carefully. Far more people will read the CSA article, especially those wanting know;ledge on the subject, and giving this argticle space in the CSA article is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia and for NPOV in the CSA article. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I write my comments explicitly, not implicitly. It doesn't serve communication to read anything into them beyond what I've written. My objecting to the deletion of content from this article isn't a denial that the content was inserted into a different article, for example.
- People wanting knowledge about child sexual abuse can read its article, and people wanting knowledge about adult-child sex can read that article. The two comprise closely-related but not identical subjects. Child sexual abuse, for example, can't cover kinds of adult-child sex that aren't culturally defined as abuse or any question of adult-child sex prior to the concept's having been created. The CSA-or-nothing view erects a fence and tries to keep other information out. The both-articles-have-a-place view says that all the information on this topic has a place, but neither article covers the whole topic from the same perspective. It's hard for me to see the advantage of deliberately limiting pre-Modern & non-Western perspectives by insisting on only having an article with a value-laden title, even though I see the utility of that approach at defending against pedophile POV-pushing. --Ssbohio 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- My focus was entirely on trying to understand what you had written, not reading anything into it. IMO those who want to rerad about CSA should read the adult-child sex section as part of our CSA coverage, hardly anyone has ever heard of adult-child sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's this constant string of equivocating and quibbling that makes me wonder why we're even talking. WHen I say something about you deleting content from this article, you deny it, but address yourself to a complaint I never made (that you deleted the content from the project). I talk about whether Mangojuice has castigated you similarly to me and you deny it, citing the fact that I've castigated you. Non sequitur arguments like these don't bear on the issues I've raised, nor do they support the denials you've given; I don't see where they serve any purpose other than to obfuscate the issue. If I complain about X, you can't defend X by pointing out Y. That's a textbook example of a non sequitur argument. Similarly, you've used straw man arguments where points I've raised have been distorted in order to create an easier target to knock down. If we're going to get anywhere, we have to start dialing in to what exactly we are asserting, which assertions we are defending, and which we are refuting. This issue is complex enough without adding additional non sequitur and straw man arguments. --Ssbohio 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Your revert
If you are going to revert please don't leave a great mess behind you for someopne else to clear up. Such lazy reverting merely damages the project, see Misplaced Pages:Edit war. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Further disingenuous, near-trolling comments on my talk page? You created the mess when you merged the article against consensus. It was yours to clean up. I'm glad you did. --Ssbohio 03:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had not touched the article today as you can see for yourself so what you are talking about eludes mebut you messed up, as you did last week and were told, so there are no excuses, and your defending your own sloppiness by blaming it on me is nothing more than justifying your own edit warring in a lazy manner. If you are going to continue with this line of actions I suggest you do not leave a mess and blame it on me again. If you think asking you not to edit war and leave a mess is trolling please refresh yourself as to our policies and how we do things here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Basically do not put or blame the edits of another editor on me ever again. I hope this is understood, i am not responsible for the edits of other editors and your implying that I am is in the worst possible bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- So it's alright for thee but not for me? See also hypocrisy. You are correct in that I mistook Pol64's adding substantially the same information to the CSA article as you did for your having done the same thing days ago. Nonetheless, the mess you attempt to blame me for isn't mine. The editor who added the content is the one to whom you should vent your spleen. --Ssbohio 03:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please remain civil and do not make baseless accusations of hypocrisy on my part. I don't work here for people to take pot-shots at my integrity. Then mess was yours the moment you reverted Pol64. Taking responsibility for mistakes and trying to do better is the way to create a good encyclopedia and become a better editor. Your comment that it was Pol64 who made the mess is simply false as he had merged the adult-child article into CSA and you are being disingenuous in blaming others for your own sloppiness and especially when the editors you blame were not being sloppy in the way that you were. And you are an experienced editor so you should no better than to make the mistake let alone not take responsibility for it. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You blamed me for a mess that Pol64 created, then you took me to task for opposing your blaming me for it. That is, however you want to slice it, something I view as hypocrisy, not as a pejorative label, but by its dictionary definition. You condemned me for an act that you, yourself had done. The act was hypocritical, but you're not a hypocrite, as that was unlike what I've seen of you in the past. --Ssbohio 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverting another mess edit of yours
Here you state I had reverted you, actually that was not the case, if you look here you will see your edit was such a mess and I didn't know what you wanted to do that i reverted it as what in a newbie would be identified as vandalism, though it was clearly a mistake on your part. Search for the gibberish terms Juvhttp and Edit this pageenile. What annoys me is you are accusing me of edit warring to fix your mess, and this is the second mess of yours I have fixed tonight. What I did was not a revert it was fixing a mess so please take more care in not providing inaccurate edit summaries to cover up your sloppiness, I don't have endless patience. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see from the edit in question, in the course of doing other things, I inadvertently pasted something from my clipboard into the middle of the word juvenile, creating juvhttp & pageenile, as well as the gibberish in between. You are once again bearing false witness against me. I never once said you reverted me. You removed the content that you had previously substantially added, after Pol64 added it again as part of his/her attempt to force a merge against consensus. Until that point, I hadn't edited CSA today. I edited the article, making the editing mistake noted above, and adding to the edit summary that the mess wasn't mine, as you had accused. Pol64 was the user you were reverting at that point, but you were accusing me of making the mess, and later on of being lazy and of attacking you. As I've said before, it's not you, it's your work. If I said I didn't like your dog, that would be attacking you. For the record, I like all your pets, and I like the fact that your userpage tells me about you as a person, outside of this Wiki. I was mistaken in referring to the content you were removing as having been added by you, when it was merely very similar to content you had added. I apologize unreservedly for that erroneous conclusion. --Ssbohio 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- We don't actually know each other though you know a little bit about me but I certainly don't hold any personal malice towards you, thanks for the apology. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad of that. My editing has been a bit more in haste than usual, both because I have final exams coming up next week and because the Internet connection I'm on here keeps dropping out, so I feel like I have to play Beat the Clock every time I edit. Also, let me know if you've had further thoughts on my email. I'd really like to see what we can do together. There has to be some way for you and me to synergize. Thanks for being understanding. --Ssbohio 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lol I though internet outages only occurred in the third world. Having said that I bought a new modem the other week and the endless internet outages I suffered have stopped. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm up at my mother's place helping her as she recovers from surgery for diverticulitis. I have access to a WiFi connection, but it's a weak signal, so I never know whether the connection I have right now will stay up for long. Plus, my mother could call for me at any moment, which doesn't help. Anyway, just let me know where to send the Marmite and we'll be all set. --Ssbohio 06:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
hbdragon88 RfA
Well, if you want to really know my opinion of it now, I find the debate to be extraordinarily petty (on my part) and kind of ridiculous. I used a talk page to justify changing it to "and"? And downplaying the technological prowess of MediaWiki? I acknowledge now that attempting to force the change was a bad thing, the approach was wrong, and I should have carried out a talk page discussion before trying to change it back, or after seeing it change back not to crusade and change all & to & to make a point. The MOS is flexible and consensus on talk pages determine when the MOS is ambigious and isn't definitively clear.
I don't see you to as a problem editor. In fact I congratulate you on boldness and sensitivity in handling the WP:BLP minefield of Justin Berry, having to be ever viligant and careful about sourcing negative facts, especially after Jimbo Wales personally deleted the article himself. As is my convention, I deliberately do the completely safe, cursory, non-controversial (as much as possible) edits. Nobody is going to yell at me for moving "high school years" up in a biographical manner (before it was being deleted as unsourced material), or achiving the talk page, or, as I thought, changing the & to and. And no one's particular feelings are hurt, or real damage wrought, when I source gameplay information on video game articles.
As for the wikilink issue, can I see the diff? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let me say right off the bat that what you've said above has gone a long way to allay my concerns. I've already sampled your contribs and find you to be a thoroughly capable editor. It was a nagging concern in my mind that, had you had admin tools during our conflict, you would have been tempted to use them. I'm glad to report that I no longer feel that concern; You're not the same editor you were 17 months ago, & neither am I.
- As for the wikilink issue, an admin who has since left the project deleted almost 700 revisions from the history of Justin Berry, including diffs from the time of our disagreement. What it boils down to is: I was adding dates in the form ] and you thought they should be added as ]. I think you see now that the date format in the Wiki markup is superseded by the user's preferences, and I see now that it's better to be consistent, even when the inconsistency is invisible to most users. I'm prepared to waive the point since I'm now satisfied with regard to your RfA.
- Finally, concerning the Justin Berry article, it's in even worse shape now than when you and I were tussling over ampersands. The same admin deleted the article history once, had his deletion reverted by a fellow admin, then deleted the history again a couple of months later. He has never said what the BLP-violating issues were, so they can be avoided in the future, and, to my mind, the deletion hasn't been supported. After your successful nom, would you be interested in taking a disinterested look at the issue and discussing it with some of the more-involved admins? I feel that the deleting admin may have used his BLP concerns in order to preserve a "preferred" version of the article. To me, this particular article has been an overall failure in terms of the wiki process. It's been very difficult to achieve a stable version.
- To paraphrase Winnie the Pooh), it's awfully hard to be brave when you're a very small user. The current article ignores much of the published information about Berry in favor of the telling of Berry's story in a way favorable to one side. So, would you be willing to turn your methodical nature to this thorny issue and help create a balanced article? --Ssbohio (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno...Misplaced Pages is fun when the issues are simple and clear, and I dislike getting bogged down into minefield issues. I've been tearing through the CSD backlog, for instance, instead of mucking up in AFDs (though most of those are fairly non-controversial). I don't think I read it very closely, but –
- Hm. I can see the diff now, and I don't see what was wrong with it. I knew that the truth about justin was a bit leery. But the bit about Eichenwald and his payment to Berry? It seems reliable enough, nothing particularly bad. But it's been deleted by two very respectable editors (Sandifer and Bebeck). Did you try asking a Village Pump for whether they agreed or not? hbdragon88 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a stagnant Bebeck-Sandifer-Ssbohio conflict. Sandifer seems to disappear and not acutally say why he did what he did. I'm wondering too about teh question you posed to him on 30 October 2007, and why he didn't respond to it other than ask, "You're joking, right?" hbdragon88 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify: Sandifer deleted the article, Beback restored it when Sandifer didn't back up his action. A month or so later, Sandifer deleted it again and Beback explicitly stated that he didn't object. Another admin, JoshuaZ, was considering undeleting the history, but Jimbo voiced an opinion, which everyone immediately took as holy writ (except me). Forgive my intemperate language, but the Justin Berry article has been the source of a mind-boggling level of frustration for me. I want more facts in the article. Sandifer (& others) want fewer facts in the article. On balance, I favor more facts over fewer. Eichenwald has (after the information about his $1000 to Berry was removed, etc. from Berry's article) admitted that he gave Berry more like $4000 over the time he knew Berry online. Berry, being part-victim & part-perpetrator, attracts POV-pushers from all sides. Sigh. --Ssbohio 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh. I've glanced through that article before, and let me tell you, it's almost like maybe it belongs on WikiNews for a while - a month? A year? See what other RSs show up, what 3rd party sources put together, etc. Maybe after a bit of that, more of the "truth" will be accessible. I can totally understand and empathize that article being a source of WikiStress for you! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- That one article has made me most willing to pack in the two years I've spent editing here and take up a less stressful hobby (like bullfighting, maybe). I wasn't the creator of the article, a self-described pedophile was. I came in after Jimbo (personally) deleted the article. I spent the first part of its life defending it mostly against pro-pedophile & vandal edits. Now, I'm dealing with people like Phil Sandifer, who has repeatedly used his admin tools to enforce his preferred outcome in this content dispute; Will Beback, who reversed himself to agree with Sandifer after undoing his admin deletion of the article, and SqueakBox who has a passionate drive against manifestations of pedophilia that sometimes overwhelms other considerations. What stresses me the most is the continuing unwillingness (particularly on Sandifer's part) to make plain his objections so I can do something about them. The number of reliable sources he has denigrated is astonishing; That he's backed up his editorial judgment with his admin tools is appalling. This is the first case where I've seriously considered formal dispute resolution, but I fear my lack of experience there versus Sandifer's home field advantage. If it weren't for people like you, Dev920, JoshuaZ, and others, I'd've walked away already. We have effectively insulated a sex offender from the verifiable, reliably sourced, public evidence of his criminal activities. All I want is for the article to present the facts (as we know them to be) and allow the reader to make up his own mind. How do I proceed? --Ssbohio (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh. I've glanced through that article before, and let me tell you, it's almost like maybe it belongs on WikiNews for a while - a month? A year? See what other RSs show up, what 3rd party sources put together, etc. Maybe after a bit of that, more of the "truth" will be accessible. I can totally understand and empathize that article being a source of WikiStress for you! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify: Sandifer deleted the article, Beback restored it when Sandifer didn't back up his action. A month or so later, Sandifer deleted it again and Beback explicitly stated that he didn't object. Another admin, JoshuaZ, was considering undeleting the history, but Jimbo voiced an opinion, which everyone immediately took as holy writ (except me). Forgive my intemperate language, but the Justin Berry article has been the source of a mind-boggling level of frustration for me. I want more facts in the article. Sandifer (& others) want fewer facts in the article. On balance, I favor more facts over fewer. Eichenwald has (after the information about his $1000 to Berry was removed, etc. from Berry's article) admitted that he gave Berry more like $4000 over the time he knew Berry online. Berry, being part-victim & part-perpetrator, attracts POV-pushers from all sides. Sigh. --Ssbohio 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hola
Here I am canvassing again but hopefully in a fair way. I'd like your opinion on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since you invited me without recommending a course of action, I'll smile & go look. Though, I'm not sure I like the title. It would seem like anything on that topic would also fit under child sexual abuse. --Ssbohio 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| File:Red leaves wreath transparent bg.png The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter File:Red leaves wreath transparent bg.png | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
you too...
...have spoken truth to power. That's the first time I've seen Giano compared to a Quaker, even indirectly. Well said. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank-you for your honest and constructive comments at my RFA. I do appreciate your concern, and recognize that it is a real problem when certain members of the community feel like they have authority or superior clout. Being a user-contributed resource, Misplaced Pages needs a constant stream of fresh perspective and energy. If we allow an atmosphere where new users feel like there is a hierarchy of authority obstructing their participation, we will squelch the creativity and growth of the project. I hope you can see from my reply that I do not see adminship as a shiny sherriff's badge or aristocratic symbol. I really do just want a mop to clean up the messes. JERRY contribs 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, Ssbohio, there is still time to change your !vote on my RFA. I would really appreciate either further dialogue with you on your perspective, or you changing your !vote to support. It seems you drew a strong conclusion of my intentions from just my answer on RFA standard candidate question #1. I wonder if there are additional evidences or reasons to be concerned? It would really be great to have a clean slate (X/0/0) at the end of this RFA, and your opinion is very important. Thanks, JERRY contribs 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been on the losing end of a battle with a particularly egregious abuser of his admin powers at Justin Berry. Since you have opined that adminship goes beyond the mop & bucket work that I think it's confined to, I'm open to being convinced of that, or to being convinced that what you meant isn't what I understood. Just clear the situation up for me & I'll be happy. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the opportunity to further explain my answer to RFA question #1, in the hope that it will be less offensive to you. My answer was intending to contrast the typical mop and bucket tools from those that require greater understanding and practice. So I was talking about two subsets of mop-and-bucket tasks, not 'the mop-and-bucket tasks from all the other administrative tasks. As I understand it, there are essentially 11 administrative tasks:
- Deleting pages and images
- Performing Speedy deletion
- Closing XfD and performing associated deletion per concensus
- Ending Prod and deleting as appropriate
- Undeleting pages and images
- Merging page histories
- Performing requested moves
- Protecting or unprotecting pages and images
- Editing a protected page
- Protecting a non-existent page
- Editing the interface
- Block a user, IP or range of IPs
- Unblock a user, IP or range
- Using admin revert (rollback)
- Deleting pages and images
- Some of these functions are really straight forward, and were in the group I was wanting to call "typical mop and bucket" functions. These are functions where as an inexperienced administrator, I would be highly unlikely to cause a worse mess by making a mistake. Yet others are likley to get messed-up, and still others have political ramifications, and generally require community concensus before taking the action. My answer was intending to say that I would forge into the former right away and wait until I fully understood the procedures and pitfalls of the latter.
- I hope this is a better explanation of my mindset on the role of wikipedia administrators. JERRY contribs 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your speedy reply. Your more detailed explanation alleviates my concern. To me, all the tasks you listed above are "mop & bucket" tasks, albeit some require more mopping skill than others. I will point out a couple of things, however: It's perfectly appropriate for any community member to close an AfD. It's not a decision reserved for admins; And admins also act to completely delete particular page revisions or entire page histories, as well as the tasks you listed. In fact, it's this last one that forms the basis for my dismay at what happened in the Justin Berry article. An admin, for what he saw as good reason, deleted 600+ revisions from the article's history and consistently refused to provide support for his action or for his contention about problems with the article that he "solved" by deleting them. --Ssbohio (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the opportunity to further explain my answer to RFA question #1, in the hope that it will be less offensive to you. My answer was intending to contrast the typical mop and bucket tools from those that require greater understanding and practice. So I was talking about two subsets of mop-and-bucket tasks, not 'the mop-and-bucket tasks from all the other administrative tasks. As I understand it, there are essentially 11 administrative tasks:
- I've been on the losing end of a battle with a particularly egregious abuser of his admin powers at Justin Berry. Since you have opined that adminship goes beyond the mop & bucket work that I think it's confined to, I'm open to being convinced of that, or to being convinced that what you meant isn't what I understood. Just clear the situation up for me & I'll be happy. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Byzantine and misleading
Will says: "The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque," yet his actions with regard to the Justin Berry article have been not merely opaque but absolutely and misleading. Similarly poor candidates have withdrawn. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever been intentionally misleading or 'Byzantine' about that article. Sure, biographies of living people are often delicate. Imagine if the article were about you. I think I've supported an honest and direct approach while maintaining important BLP limitations. I'd be happy to discuss the matter here or on my talk page as there's apparently been a misunderstanding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Will. I'll give a couple of examples of what I see as opaque, Byzantine, or misleading statements on your part:
- You supported forking information about Timothy Ryan Richards off into its own article. You then turned around and advocated for the article's deletion. Forgive me my bluntness, but were you misleading when you supported spinning off the content or misleading when you advocated the spun off article's deletion?
- You reverted Phil Sandifer's history deletion on the Justin Berry article, then, paradoxically, supported his doing the same thing over again, without explaining your change of heart, and neither you nor Sandifer ever explained the problem. Since neither of you elected to cite any but the most vague and nebulous of reasons, my view (there was no BLP-violating material in the article as it existed) stands unopposed. These radical rescissions have been made by Sandifer and supported by you, all for no apparent reason.
- I know that this is a tough topic. My heart went out to Berry after I read the NYT article. However, it's become exceedingly clear that the Times exposé was both factually and ethically compromised. I've spent, over time, a great deal of energy trying to keep this article from becoming a vehicle for the pro-pedophile/anti-pedophile POV conflict that's been rampant in other articles.
- There are editors on this project whom I've come to expect not to be trustworthy. What bothers me most about this situation is that you weren't one of them. But now, how can I look at what you've done and the (unintentional) POV-pushing effect of your words and actions and still extend trust to you? How can I support you as a neutral arbitrator when I can't count on you to support NPOV when in my view you didn't stand up in this case? For that matter, how can I be comfortable with your continued adminship? This is disturbing; Moreover, it's disappointing. Where do we go from here? --Ssbohio (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've split the two issues so we can directly address each without ambiguity or spillover. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim Richards
- The article on Justin Berry is about Berry, not about Richards. It was appropriate to move the material out, and let it stand (or not) on its own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- First, Richards is a notable part of the article on Berry, as they allegedly engaged together in a criminal enterprise, with one participant (Berry) getting immunity for helping prosecute the other (Richards). In the same way, Gilo Tunno, Aaron Campbell Brown, and Greg Mitchel are all notable elements of this article.
- Second, as to the appropriateness of removing the material on Richards, I categorically refute your assertion. Excising Richards (and the others) from the article places Berry in a false light and misleads the reader as to his status in the ongoing criminal enterprises that the Federal government has prosecuted. The only criminal actor left in this article is Ken Gourlay. The facts of that case tend to paint Berry as a sympathetic victim only. The article now makes no mention of Berry's numerous criminal co-conspirators whatsoever. Is that "appropriate?"
- Third, you failed to address one scintilla of my criticism of your actions in this regard. You encouraged the creation of a new article about Richards on Talk:Justin Berry, then, once you had the content out of the Berry article, you completed the flanking maneuver by supporting the deletion of the Richards article. As you ignored my main point, it implies an answer to my question: Was this a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead me into thinking I had your support for a spinoff article? You can't tell me you support creation of the article and also tell AfD that you support deletion of the same article. One of those positions is diametrically opposed to the other. How do you explain your words and your conduct? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
History deletions
- Regarding the deletion of the article history, The first time it was done without prior discussion. The second time came after the article had once again grown quite long and a different approach was needed. I don't recall being asked for an explanation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neither of the deletions was discussed beforehand. Phil Sandifer unilaterally deleted essentially the same content & history twice. Once, you disagreed and reverted him. The second time, without explanation, you reversed yourself and supported him. Sandifer never provided facts to support any of his allegations, either of unacceptably "salacious" material, of unreliable sources, or much of anything else.
- An editor's opinion shouldn't be the basis for a content decision, especially when he refuses to provide support for that opinion. An admin shouldn't be using his admin tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I opposed his action both on principle (one can't find consensus by bringing a gun to the fight) and on specific grounds (multiple reliable sources, maintaining NPOV, etc). Sandifer did a lot of arguing, but he couldn't even say that he'd read the sources he was challenging, much less establish why they should be treated as unreliable when other similar sources fall well within policy. By your inexplicable agreement, you're saying that you support his action, but, like Sandifer, not giving any factual basis for your determination. No one has to ask you to discuss your position; That's what talk pages are there for. But, to bypass your semantic objection, I'll ask: Why did you support Sandifer's second (essentially identical) history deletion but oppose his first? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calvin 1998 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Adult-child sex
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Adult-child sex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Err, we dont discuss this on Penwhale's talk page but on the adult-child sex talk page, your edit looks deliberately disruptive to me given where you chose to post. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Err, I wasn't discussing it there, by any English-language understanding of the word discussion. I was asking him to have a look at the edit conflict, as he had been involved in thwarting a previous attempt (by you) to ram a redirect down our throats when no consensus to do so was demonstrated. Your edit here looks like trolling, given the lie you chose to write. Your apology would be appreciated. Thanks, --SSBohio 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)