Erik wrote
You're right, of course, that Nostrum's additions were highly biased, factually inaccurate and grossly misplaced. I read them. But calling people semi-literate or vandals does not exactly help in turning them into valuable contributors.
This user had been complained to by a number of people who told him about NPOV. He persisted constantly in adding in a POV diatribe over and over and over again and implied that anyone who wouldn't let him put in his diatribe was in denial or tolerant of paedophilia in the RC church.
He used the headline "Homosexual abuse in catholicism", which is certainly misleading but not necessarily meant as an equation of pedophilia with homosexuality. It is an unfortunate fact that the large majority of pedophiles are interested in boys -- that's why these groups (well, not the Catholics, really) call themselves "Boylover associations", have sites like boylinks.net and so on. There are also "girllovers", but these are a minority. I can cite studies on this if you are interested.
Wrong. 1. He used the word 'homosexual' over a piece he wrote on paedophiles. He never once mentioned homosexuals. But he categorised those doing the abuse in catholicism as being homosexuals. In the population most paedophiles are usually heterosexual, the parents or relatives of the child being abused.
2. Paedophiles are interested in children. Some are gender-specific. Many many are not. The vast majority of priest paedophile cases I have studied relate to individual paedophiles abusing /both/ sexes, who are simply turned on by raping children, and they will rape whichever is the type they can get their hands on at any one time, boys or girls. I mentioned the case of Fr. Brendan Smyth in the article. He raped boys and girls in equal measure. So did Fr. Jim Grennan (who raped children /on/ the altar). Another priest I know of raped children (male and female) in a children's hospital.
Nostrum's justifications included ''added overbearing proof to people who would like to live in big holes under bridges, Say hi to sammy for me'' ''If you
think
there is POV in homosexual abuse in Catholocism then take it out, don't delete it, remember, fix, not censor, otherwise I will list you as a
censor
and you don't want to be on my bad side''
I saw these edit comments and this is what I am referring to when I use the word "ugly". If the whole matter had been addressed calmly on the talk page of the article and the user talk page, we might not have seen Nostrum's "bad side" so quickly.
So it is everyone /else's/ fault this user made comments such as saying that maybe catholics want their children raped, is it? /He/ is responsible for his own actions. No-one else is.
172 was aware of the guidelines but chose to violate them because he felt he was sufficiently backed up.
That is a gross and insulting delberate mis-representation. He saw the case as borderline as he was not someone who added one word to the article, he is not religious and has written nothing to wiki on child abuse. He suggested a course of action, understood it had support and /in good faith/ acted.
And of course
he was right, to a degree -- with you by his side, what could go wrong?
I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.
172 enforced his position by protecting the page, knowing that he would receive support for doing so from some participants. But it doesn't matter if you do or don't support 172's decision -- what matters is that sysops are not supposed to do these things, because this leads us down a slippery slope where we end up with a cabal that makes decisions for the unenlightened masses. I would think that people from a leftist political perspective would be more sensitive to such issues of developing power structures.
Considering your own behaviour of changing dates to suit things the way you wanted, and then trying to interpret a vote on the matter in a way that suited you, I don't think you are in a position to criticise 172 for abuse of power.
But I would not have revoked 172's sysop privileges if he had just agreed to ask someone else who did not participate in the debate to protect the page, as our guidelines recommend.
He couldn't get someone to do it straight away and understood he had agreement to act.
He flat out refused doing so and reprotected the page after I had unprotected it,
If you had reprotected the page he wouldn't have had to. But you irresponsbly left the page unprotected opening up the prospect of a nenewed edit war. He re-protected it to stop that happening, while a solution was worked out or someone else came along to do the protecting instead.
You seem to think that protecting pages is a bad idea. That is your POV. You decided to enforce that POV on a page where a different solution was supported, tried and worked.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail