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
james-
This user had been complained to by a number of people who told him about NPOV.
Sure, but he also had suppporters. Michael Becker wrote:
"Why don't you ask the author for their source instead of acting stupid and emotional and making assumptions?" .. "Nostrum's most recent edits have been NPOV. They are statement of facts. All you and Efghi did was remove information that had links to back it up (on any other article those links would not be needed!)."
Mkmconn wrote:
"It may also have been written by a web-savvy child, trying to make sense of things; in which case, milder instruction might be effective."
Voiceofreason wrote:
"Am heartened by Nostrum's attempt at NPOV and cooperation, which should be commended."
This was all before 172 protected the page. Several people were quite obviously willing to work with Nostrum.
- He used the word 'homosexual' over a piece he wrote on paedophiles.
Indeed, but the word referred to "abuses", not to people. It is certainly possible, albeit ambiguous, to refer to pederastic abuses as homosexual in nature. Furthermore, he corrected this rather quickly instead of reverting to it in a real edit war.
He never once mentioned homosexuals. But he categorised those doing the abuse in catholicism as being homosexuals.
That is an interpretation based on a single headline.
In the population most paedophiles are usually heterosexual, the parents or relatives of the child being abused.
Pedophilia is defined by the DSM a "over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)." Pedophiles fantasize exclusively about children, they justify their "love" of children by saying that the children want to be with them, and believe that what they do is best for the kids. Relationships between pedophiles and children often last several years. Pedophiles typically see themselves as "saviors" and educators of children. Pedo-websites include:
http://www.nambla1.de http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/ http://www.fpc.net/sites/jay_h/ http://www.fpc.net/sites/rvsh/ http://philia.ws/dd/ And of course the huge pedo/pederasm website directory boylinks.net.
If you check out websites like boylinks.net, you will find an obsession with prepubescent boys, linking to TV movies, gay youth websites, erotic fiction (not as problematic as real child pornography), etc. They post long manifestos and diatribes and cite what they believe to be scientific studies in support of their point of view that boys want to have sex with them. The primary researchers of the pedophile movement, such as Brongersma or Bernard, all cite statistics of a ca. 90/10 percent split between "boylovers" and "girllovers", usually gathered by interviewing people who identified themselves as pedophiles.
What you are referring to are not pedophiles, but *sexual abusers*. Not every pedophile is a sexual abuser, and not every sexual abuser is a pedophile. Your above definition is the mass media definition of pedohpile as published by the tabloids, but it has nothing to do with reality. It is correct that sexual abuse happens predominantly in families by parents or relatives (usually not the parents, because the biological incest taboo prevents this). Pedophiles are, however, defined by their recurrent and long-lasting sexual preference for children, much as homosexuals are characterized by their preference for other men, and heterosexuals by their preference for women.
The vast majority of priest paedophile cases I have studied relate to individual paedophiles abusing /both/ sexes,
First, we don't even know how many of these priests were actual pedophiles, and how many used sexual abuse of children as compensation for lack of a relationship with an adult man or woman (pedophiles don't *want* that type of relationship -- they only want to be with children, and can often not be sexually aroused in any other setting).
Second, many of the most high profile cases involved exclusively boys and not girls, e.g.:
Abused altar boys sue Church for millions The Catholic Church in the United States has been ordered to pay $120 million in damages to 10 former altar boys, and the parents of another, who were sexually assaulted by a priest. Father Rudolph Kos abused boys over an eleven year period. When they complained, the church covered it up. Kos allegedly abused the boys on hundreds of occasions at three different churches in Dallas. .. 17 more allege abuse by Geoghan, file suit Boston Globe/October 4, 2002 By Michael Rezendes
Sixteen men and a teenage boy filed new lawsuits yesterday against convicted pedophile John J. Geoghan and a roster of church officials who supervised the former priest, signaling that the Boston Archdiocese may be defending sexual abuse claims against Geoghan for years to come. ... With yesterday's civil filings, the 67-year-old Geoghan has been accused of sexually molesting children, mostly boys, at each of the six parishes where he was formally assigned during his 36 years as an active priest. Those parishes are located in Saugus, Concord, Hingham, and Weston, and in the Boston neighborhoods of Forest Hills and Dorchester.
Priest says he, too, molested boys By Sacha Pfeiffer and Steve Kurkjian, Globe Staff, 1/26/2002 ... And last night, the Rev. Ronald H. Paquin acknowledged to a Globe reporter that he had molested boys in both communities until 1989. In the soft- spoken voice of a man broken by events, he said he himself was raped by a Catholic priest when he was growing up in Salem. ... Lawsuit accuses transferred priest of molestation He was convicted of sexual misconduct in By Associated Press: Robert Jablon LOS ANGELES -- A Milwaukee priest convicted of sexual misconduct with a boy in 1973 was shipped to Orange County, where he molested an 8-year-old, according to a lawsuit disclosed Tuesday. ... Widera was relieved of his duties in 1985 amid allegations that he had sexually abused boys, Schinderle said.
Priest to go on trial in sex-abuse case Clark was convicted in 1988 of molesting 2 boys in Bullitt By ANDREW WOLFSON A Bullitt Circuit Court jury will be asked in a trial scheduled to begin tomorrow to consider whether the Rev. Daniel C. Clark, a Roman Catholic priest who was convicted in 1988 of sexually abusing two boys, molested two boys between 1998 and May 2002.
---
And so on, and so forth. Of course there were priests who abused girls, but I would be surprised if the statistics did not show a clear preference for boys, which would very much be supported by everything we know about pedophiles.
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.
Of course he is. Looking at cause and effect is, however, often more useful than trying to find someone to blame.
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,
Unlike you, I changed dates in accordance with our existing MoS recommendations, and did not try to interpret a vote on the matter in a "way that suited me." In fact, the only reason that I did not set up a replacement vote for the ill conceived original one (which, however, very much supported my case as it stood) is that Tim Starling came up with a working dynamic date converter, which is currently runing on test.wikipedia.org.
Regards,
Erik