User talk:Ssbohio/Adult-child sex

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia).

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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[1] 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

There was no conflict till you came along. Instead there were 7 editors in broad agreement to redirect the page, and your description of the previous incident makes me think I was wrong to assume any good faith in you as an editor, how am i trolling to point out your lack of courtesy towards those 7 editors, you couldn't even be bothered to explain your edit warring. I suggest you don't accuse me of lying, especially asd you are clearly unable to back up your (yet another) vicious accusation. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• There was no conflict till you came along -- I wasn't the first to revert the reidirect, and I'll wager I won't be the last. Therefore, your statement of fact is inaccurate. You are either ignorant or lying.
• There were 7 editors in broad agreement to redirect the page -- An error of omission, or a lie by omission? The 7 editors you claim agree aren't the only involved editors.
• how am i trolling to point out your lack of courtesy -- Because you didn't merely point out my lack of courtesy as you saw it, you instead falsely accused me of having a discussion I didn't have and of attempting to disrupt. To quote WP:TROLL, A troll deliberately exploits weaknesses of human nature or of an online community to upset people. What would your coming here and accusing me of doing things I demonstrably didn't do be but an attempt to exploit weaknesses of human nature in order to upset me?
• you couldn't even be bothered to explain your edit warring -- Is one revert considered edit warring to you? It hardly seems a reasonable (or consensus) definition. Also, my edit was explained in my edit summary. So, in this case, you compounded one lie (about my edit) with another (about its being unexplained)

Have I backed up my vicious accusation yet? Would you like a pie chart, Venn diagram, or bar graph? You came to my talk page, spread lies about me, insulted me, then reacted in (feigned?) innocence when I called you on your bull. If you want to have a fight, we'll do that off-wiki. When you're here, I expect you to, at the very least, avoid spreading untruths about me, and to apologize when you're caught doing so. --SSBohio 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Accusing me of lying is not acceptable, I am happy to continue this discussion when you have calmed down but not before as your last statements are a truly atrocious breach of basic civility, I bet you do not treat your work colleagues like this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You lied. Demonstrably. That is a statement of fact. Why you lied is for you to know. That you lied on my talk page is an example of trolling, as well as a truly atrocious breach of basic civility. And, of course, I don't treat my work colleagues like this. None of them would have the temerity to come to me and make fictitious accusations against me. --SSBohio 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling with idiotic accusations which you can't back up, as you well know. Why are you blaming me for this. I have not touched the article but you have gone hysterical and are blaming me. Please desist now, as it is your uncivil accusations that are the only trolling round here and your hysterical lying accusations are false. You are acting as if you own the article, and merely because 8 editors disagree with your solitary viewpoint you become a rude brat, disgustingly and intolerably rude. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You lied about me. I stated the facts. By denying my even saying what I've said on this very page you show yourself to be not only a liar, but a malicious liar. You can disagree with me, but at least have the testicular fortitude to admit that I've said what I've said & not continually lie about what I've said, not said, or think. I'm not your errand boy; You've no place ordering me about as though I were. Further trolling will be reverted & a user warning issued. --SSBohio 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a step back, recollect, and then continue.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. reference this edit and this one. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack to say that someone caught in the act of lying is a liar. Squeak made deliberately untrue statements of fact about me. His attacks against me have been vicious, nasty, and fairly personal. I've refuted his false claims, and not for the first time. I note with dismay that you've chosen to single me out for this warning. If you're intending to help this situation, criticizing only one side isn't the way to do it. And, shouldn't you start with a level one template, if you intend to address me with boilerplate? --SSBohio 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. I tagged both you and Pol at the (exact) same time. That was the back-and-forth that was pushing the limits of civility. I am not commenting on the issues with Squeak because I am already involved myself with a vicious string of personal attacks at me (and I have responded aggressively at times, though not with the deliberate name-calling and accusations that he has) and thus I feel it would be inappropriate for me to rebuke him at this time as it could be seen as a personal vengence-motivated tagging. I do not refute that you have been attacked or that you have responded in truth, but phrases such as "It's kind of fun seeing how vicious you & Squeak can be over this". Constantly accusing others of lying in the manner in which you have can also be considered attacking. I do not debate that you bring up good points about being misrepresented, but the over-aggressive manner is why the warning (and only a warning, no Noticeboard post, nothing like that). Pol denied even seeing anything wrong with his comments. I have been in the same situation you are in and much more was made of it; I am and was trying to prevent you from ending up in the same position and to step in as a sort of mediator. That is all. I only ask that you calm down a little (difficult, I know, especially when you are being personally attacked as well) and then continue the work. Thanks for your understanding and assumptions of good faith not only on my part, but with all editors. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem assuming good faith with your actions, but question whether tagging my talk page while not tagging Squeak's, however well-intentioned, had the effect (not intent) of diminishing good faith.
• As for Pol, I specifically addressed his accusation that I was (to paraphrase & expand their inference) a deranged, delusional pedophile. I demanded that they either provide facts to back up their accusations or withdraw them. And, much as a snarling dog is vicious, such accusations toward a fellow Wikipedian are vicious. I have a good record here, and, unlike Squeak, I haven't kept my record clean with the implicit assistance of angels among the admins. Calling a liar a liar is a statement of fact. Calling a vicious attack vicious is likewise. Were I addressing myself to their personal characteristics, then I could see an argument being made about personal attacks. I've consistently pointed out Squeak's trolling; he has yet to make an overt personal attack against me. Pol came close, but weaseled out of it by merely making an insinuation. As William Shakespeare wrote in Richard II, Mine honour is my life, both grow in one. Take honour from me, and my life is done. Then, dear my liege, mine honour let me try; In that I live, and for that I will die. --SSBohio 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Thank you for understanding.

2. Realize that not tagging Squeak was necessary to preserve my appearance of Good Faith.

3. You are right about accusations being visious. As I believe I've stated - including on the ACS talk page - you are justified in your views of the attacks, but I ask that you take a step back and not respond in escalating kind. I know... I should talk... But I did do the same with Squeak and did not (quite) sink to the same name-calling level. I only ask that you do the same and realize that I am trying to protect you from the total disruption I ended up suffering because of it (ultimately from well-intentioned moderators that were spoon-fed only a small portion of the story).

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (And best of luck on the ACS article. I believe you are in the "right" as far as the NPOV and historical fact angles go... and that is "clear"!)  :-)

1. We are both honorable people. I can understand your attempt while utterly disputing its effect. That's the difference between respecting personal honor, as we (currently) are doing, and abusing personal honor, as Squeak has done to both of us.
2. I realize why you didn't tag Squeak. However, if you weren't going to tag him, you shouldn't have tagged me. Period. Even if that weren't so, you shouldn't template the regulars anyway, as you know from other conversations on your talkpage.
3. I deny that I have responded in kind or with escalation. I refute the attacks against me, but I make no new attacks of my own. Self-defense is only justified to repel an attack, not to punish an attacker. Squeak has gotten away with far too much for far too long, through his skill with certain admins and certain processes as well as through his otherwise stellar contributions. I see him as having a massive blind spot when it comes to his POV on this topic; He cannot see that any opinion other than his on this topic (and others) is worth discussing, much less possibly meritorious in some way.

I bear very few people in my life any ill will. You're definitely not one of them. But, be clear that I will not consider further templating to have been undertaken in good faith, considering that we've discussed it and you understand my perspective but implicitly still stand behind your doing it to me. --SSBohio 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're good. To be clear, I was templating you and Pol, and that was the equality (at least attempted). I much better appreciate your tone above when you talk about self defense. I think a lot of the issues others took was in the "Lies! All Lies!" type of comment. I understand your use of such, but I can also see where some might see it as excessive. That's all. Glad we're in agreement, and I don't see any template issues upcoming as the situation has seemed to calm significantly. Cheers, VigilancePrime (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

I'm comfortable letting this sleeping dog lie, but we're not "good." I understand why you templated me, but it still did more harm than good, because you templated a "regular," and didn't template an egregious actor in the same conflict. I understand your reason for not templating Squeak, but, if you weren't going to template one, you shouldn't have template any. If I can come away with the feeling that you understand how I was affected by your templating me, and (at least) regret the outcome, then I'll be "good" with that. Until then, we're "ok," but we're not "good." --SSBohio 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the templating issue. I did ive equal templates as I was focusing on you and Pol. Squeak is not involved in this issue. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Perhaps someone should have templated him, but he somehow is untouchable (his direct personal attacks on me never got a warning, let alone a template either)> I wish you no angst. I think the purpose was served, though, and your comments since have been much less open to aggressive reading (and in many instances, what you are saying and what someone else reads are entirely different). I stand by the actions and WP:DTTR is not a policy. I hate invoking that "not a policy" part, but in this case it's the best answer. Don't be too offended. I got over it (though I still have to "fix" my painfully cluttered talk page now!) and I think and hope that you have or very soon will. It's just the way of the Wiki. I'd much rather see you putting effort and time into the ACS article collaboration than fret about this matter. I find it's over, both you and Pol's issues. Moving on, we all are (or need to). VigilancePrime (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Good Luck

SSB, I removed the old Invite section as it's a moot point now (figured that'd be okay). I also wanted to wish you the best of luck in your continued efforts for neutrality and reason in the witch-hunt known as an AfD. As you probably know, Squeak & Co. (which encompasses far more than just the three and their pet admin) managed to get me blocked last night after I attempted to withdraw from the debate (final assault?) and let them know as much (and restored lengthy comments that they kept blanking, and multiple people reverted back). Anyway, good luck not getting WP:STEAMrolled. If you like, drop me a line sometime or check out one of my more benign favorite articles, such as Capybara, Oozlefinch, or Moolack Beach. I'd certainly appreciate working with you more in the future! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've appreciated working with you, as well. It's sad that the attitude of closed-mindedness is driving people away. Any chance I could persuade you to reinstate your original !–vote at the AfD? I think that's where your heart lies, but I understand if you can't. If you wanted to bring back your invite text here, I'd appreciate that. Also, if I can be of any help with your block situation, please let me know. Best wishes! As a Prime, I've always found you indivisible. --SSBohio 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

surprise sex

lol I know it is funny in a sick way, I can't claim credit for it, it is a phrase from a site much disapproved of and bannned from linkage on wiki!:) Merkinsmum 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Thanks for adding your two cents; I appreciate the outside opinion.

On an unrelated note... your comment reminded me of a triathlon I was in a few years ago where my partner and I had shirts that had a reference to Herb Alpert on them. As we drove up to the race, we had the windows down with one of his songs going. About halfway through the race, as I passed a guy, he said, "Hey, were you the ones with the music? I can't get it out of my head! It's been in there this whole time!" Too funny. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's terribly cool... My partner & I would participate in a triathlon if it could be run from our sofa. As for music, I'm the guy who drives by playing the music you've never heard before. My current favorites are John Kamys' eclectic CDs and Gregg Coffin's musicals. No one's heard of them, but when I play some of their best stuff, people want to know more. Anyway, I could digress about music forever. Unless there's something that I feel has to be addressed, I've said my peace at the AfD. Same editors doing the same things, over and over; it tires a person out. Trying to keep some sense of proportion in that article has brought me close to throwing in the towel more than once. If the mob rules, then there's no hope of this project's producing an encyclopedia and I might as well take up another hobby, like doing triathlons...  :-) --SSBohio 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, most of my athletic participation is done from the couch as well. I agree about the mess over the ACS AfD. Ugh. A large part of me wants to blank the article, lock it down, and be done with it... but I think there's some part of policy that discourages that.

Anyway. Hey, Gregg Coffin, is that goth? *ducks* Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the same way that the Tijuana Brass is a marching band.  :-) I really don't get Goth; I'm not sure how to respond to that concentrated a dose of depression. If I (or my partner) attempted a triathlon, they'd need to know where I'd prefer to be buried before registering me, and I'd face a class-action lawsuit from all those who saw me in a Speedo. When I was living in San Diego, I let a triathlete stay with me (until I found out he was a meth user). I even overlooked his being straight. But, no matter how many times I went to Tijuana, Herb Alpert was nowhere to be found. Curse my luck! Gregg Coffin writes lyrics and music for his own shows. I'm particularly in love with his show Convenience, about a young man coming home to come out to his mother & finding out his mother has something to come out about as well.

As far as ACS goes, I'm committed to honor consensus about the article. It's really not the pro-pedo piece of garbage it's been made out to be, and I'm confident it meets the criteria for inclusion. It all depends on whether people !vote the merits or !vote their prejudice. The squick factor of this topic is very high. --SSBohio 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't know that word until following the link, but it really describes the situation to a T. I'll keep my opinions on the matter to myself until the AfD is closed (lest I be accused of [further] bias in my attempts to keep emotions in check), but let's just say you and I are in the same boat on a lot of this.

You've convinced me to track down something by Coffin, thanks for that. By the way, a meth-using triathlete? How... exotic. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime MfD -- I'm concerned not with the chance that you did something improper (which I view as remote at best) but with the appearance of impropriety. In my view, when an admin and an editor are on opposite sides of an issue/controversy/etc, then, unless there's an extremely great (imminent threat to the wiki) cause, the admin should treat his admin tools as nonexistent with respect to the controversy. I think there was a slant to VP's notice, bu he was fairly even-handed in notifying interested parties without regard to their previous position on the issue. Were it me, I'd've let that sleeping dog lie; However, I don't think less of you as an admin for having done it.
• Adult-child sex AfD -- It looks like there's no consensus to delete, from my (admittedly biased) perspective. Since a pro-deletion participant has effectively promised to keep trying to get it deleted no matter what, I can't see this ending well. But, I also cannot accept giving in to bullying and abuse of process either. Mark my words, this will end up going to ArbCom.
• Greg Coffin -- The Convenience cast recording is available at Amazon and elsewhere. It's permanently on my iPod & I probably hear a track (or more) from it every day.
• My triathlete -- I took him at his word that he was a triathlete; He had the body for it. Classically blond-haired, blue-eyed SoCal surfer boy. Exotic, especially in that he was flexible about his definition of straight. --SSBohio 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As VP noted below, I want to thank you for (unintentionally, perhaps) being a voice of good will during our exchange. I think you've helped both sides see each other's point of view more clearly. Ever thought about helping out with mediation here? I think your personality lends itself to it well. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could see that you were intending well by what you were doing, and that VP was intending well by what he was doing. Mediation might be interesting, but, as you can see above, I've had my trying times here, particularly with Squeakbox. His lying and process-bashing blows my cool with ease. --SSBohio 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 VigilancePrime (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Returning

SSB, Now that I'm "allowed" to talk, I just wanted to thank you for your support in the matter. I will say what is right and true, if unpopular, and I will endure the self-serving blocks for it. I will tell you that your confidence in TB's intent has gone a very long way in his Good Faith assumption-ishness (see TB's talk page). If there's any fantastic insights, thoughts, or comments you might have regarding any of the issues over the last very-intense week that have been following me around, I would like to hear (well, read!) them. I appreciate your time and perspectives. (And remember, you can say anything you want anytime...) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

Attacking the arbitrary decision to delete that clearly violated all consensus established in 15-20 polls and also the most recent one takes place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of impropriety

The appearance of impropriety (an ethical concern for a lay observer, as noted in the article you linked) is a problem that is not much dealt with on Wikipedia. There is a principle of transparency to most actions, as very little business is conducted off-wiki except for some ArbCom deliberations. Transparency isn't the same thing as relieving the appearance of bias or impropriety - what is key here is actual neutrality, and that is an article concern. I won't pretend to be neutral about the discussion, but I would argue that my actions were neutral in effect. Whether they were completely neutral in appearance is academic if the effect is in fact neutral, which is something I don't think is really debatable. I could make an argument after the fact that it wasn't terribly helpful, and caused somewhat more confusion than I expected - but I don't think that I could look back and point to evidence of bias in any of my actual actions.

Having said that, I think that the moving around I did actually had very little effect on the outcome or course of the debate. I'm not sure therefore that there is reason to continue to debate it, except that it is intellectually interesting to consider the issue of 'appearance of impropriety' on Wikipedia. I think that the appearance issue has gained weight mostly in areas of jurisprudence and legislation, where undisclosed biases combined with closed proceedings and highly technical topics can lead to real impact on lives and livelihoods. Since the point at Wikipedia is the content of articles, much of the legal concepts of fairness and equity have been dispensed with.

Case in point, there is a particular ArbCom case running at the moment (The IRC one, if you follow them) where one of the named parties of the dispute is a former Arbitrator and someone who fulfills other roles in the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK. The issue of appearance in this case is that former Arbitrators retain access to arbitrator-l, the ArbCom mailing list. As a result, User:David Gerard has access to all of the internal deliberations of the Arbitration Committee in a case which may (although unlikely at this point, much to the dismay of some) lead to sanctions against him. It has been discussed whether this is a serious problem (as it would be in a court of law in most of the world) but the rationale for dismissing the concern is that the point is not fairness and equity to parties - rather, it is the greater protection of the goal of the encyclopedia - which is generally served and certainly not harmed by David's subscription to the list, as his presence doesn't impugn the character or capacity of voting Arbitrators. As a neat aside - many of the ArbCom members, some clerks and a number of participants are actually lawyers.

Anyway, if you've read all this - I guess the nutshell is that I would be concerned (and agree you should be concerned) if you could point to actual impropriety rather than its appearance. I don't believe there has been any, but if you were to discover some unintended effect I would certainly admit the error. ^Avruchtalk 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

• SSBohio, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Hey SSB!

A thought I've been harboring lately is putting up an essay within my userspace on the main source for my draft (which is Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. I'd once put this up on the German Wikipedia as an article and it held up for half a year, from May 2006 until January 2007, until someone on a personal revenge crusade removed it by means of an AfD (where votes were split 50:50 and of course most wanting to get it deleted did nothing more than point to their severe disgust, although that AfD actually lasted for 2 months before it was closed). This essay of mine was actually so influential that I found literal quotes lifted from it in a nation-wide newspaper endorsing them, that literal quotes were endorsed by a German General Medical Council, and just the same with an official brochure issued by an Austrian government department, I found my very own words in all those cases. Googling for it, I found that a number of people had saved personal backups of the article in various places on the web, and there also were several forums debating its content while linking to my article on Wikipedia.

So, I've been meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to have a look at my German essay after I'll have put it up in my userspace here on the English Wikipedia and tell me whether you think it's a good idea for me to translate it to English and for the time being leaving it as the draft of an English Wikipedia article in my userspace to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. The basic idea of this essay of mine is a Wikipedia article on an existing work (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88), comparable to articles such as Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

• You may be interested in a current MfD discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
• Recently, the page User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
• Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
• If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great News?

have you seen this and this?

I wonder how long this will last... Do you hear that...? It's the sound of quiet and peace...!

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

For Real?

Did you seriously expect an answer? And oh-by-the-way, I think it's funny the way this is commented... most of us, I think, wanted it the other way around! Ah well... beggars and choosers and stuff. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Thanks for the bad faith comment. And total rubbish, unless you are, of course, merely referring to your advocacy buddies, and I take that as a compliment. Ssb just needs to learn to mind his own business. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Every edit on Wikipedia that I choose to take an interest in is, by definition, my business. You got an admin to delete your user page (and its edit history) under a false pretense, Squeak. It's hard to assume good faith when your given reason for the deletion was false and you refuse to answer a polite question about what your actual reason was. Your edit history is your reputation here. Your reason for wanting those edits deleted is material and reasonable, considering your prior issues with editing here. --SSBohio 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, SSB, he wanted to get rid of the "I will not be part of a hate website" edit history comment he made. And he talks about bad faith? (But will not post to his own talk page, he has to watchlist yours instead... there's something about that, but I can't quite place it.) And I wonder when he says "your advocacy buddies", does that sound like an accusation of some sort to you? Ah, Squeak back up to his old tricks again. I knew it was too good to be true... VigilancePrime (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-(

He's made at least one other speedy deletion request to remove a record of unflattering edits he had made. I'm worried that this is more of the same, since he won't address himself squarely to the question, and he requested the deletion under a pretense. --SSBohio 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Userfy

In response to your question to me, there were only two choices, to delete or userfy. By deleting the subpage, it is implicit that the deletion admin was expressing the view that it shouldn't be kept userfied. Dreadstar † 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post

Do not post to my user talk page again on this subject. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, I really could not care less what you think on this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was a perfectly legitimate question. And it was also a question that someone who wasn't hiding something shouldn't have been afraid to answer. Yes, afraid to anwer. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

VP, I can't assume any ill intent on the part of Squeak, and neither should you. Whether this is an honorable move depends on Squeak's reason. He simply hasn't said why he requested the deletion. All we know now is that the "right to vanish" rationale doesn't match the facts. --SSBohio 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I consider posting to your talkpage to be within my perogative as a Wikipedian. If you were to ask me not to, I'd consider your request, but I won't be bullied into any course of action. I asked you why you requested history deletion in the hopes that I could avoid raising it anywhere else, since you may have legitimate cause to request history deletion. Since your request to vanish was disingenuous, I can't completely assume good faith, so I have to ask your intentions to know them. I'm restoring my question to your talk page once. If you remove it again, I'll consider that you read it and decline to answer, so I can move to the next step. I'm happy to leave this be if your reason was legitimate; Since your stated reason doesn't apply, I can't be sure that you're not doing something to hide your previous edit history for a less-than-honorable reason. Ease my mind, Squeak, so I can worry about other things, like peak oil and inflation, like a good American.  :-) --SSBohio 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, SSB, and I would like to hear the answer as well, for the same reason of setting one's mind at ease. I guess the only reason I'm already not surprised is that I'm one step advanced from where you are in terms of considering a "decline to answer". But I can see some reasons for it both legitimate and illegitimate. I would love to believe it's the former reason type. I'm not holding my breath, but I hold out hope. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom issue?

FYI - Because potentially sensitive/personal information is involved, and issues of this type typically run through the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad has directed future inquiries concerning the content of his userpages to the ArbCom. You can reach them by sending an e-mail to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (on-wiki requests won't get far, most likely). It is unlikely that the userpage will be restored until ArbCom has made a determination, if they do. ^Avruchtalk 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I've been down that road before. I contacted ArbCom regarding another secret discussion and never got an explanation of any kind. Once the issue goes off-wiki, no one has to worry about community accountability or maintaining the contribution history of a user with a checkered past. Much like the editors who were subject to off-wiki ArbCom bans, this is an issue which will disappear and never be seen again. It saddens me that Wikipedia process can be abused to this degree without any meaningful community input. Since no one will say that there was nothing in the edit history that needed keeping, I have to assume that, as in the past, Squeak is using the process to avoid accountability for his own edits. That he has taken in a number of admins with this stuff is unfortunate; That ArbCom will now assume a position of complicity in this is doubly so. Has the community ceased to matter? Do we all now work for the admins and arbcom, rather than the other way around? This is yet another way we're taking the wiki out of Wikipedia. --SSBohio 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be wary of assuming that all involved admins and ArbCom have been or will be 'taken in' by SqueakBox or anyone else. It is a group of people who are not easily susceptible to confidence schemes, I'd wager. If you have no specific reason to believe that there is damning evidence in the history of his userpage... Don't assume its there because you haven't been told otherwise. Assume it isn't until you're told it is. ^Avruchtalk 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of even having a history is to tie authors to their edits. I'm sure there are edits here I'd like to be disassociated from, but I won't make a false assertion of WP:VANISH to have that done. Squeak has made a false claim of WP:VANISH to have his userpage deleted. Why does his claim of threats suddenly become more credible than his previous (false) claim. I assume good faith, but the assumption can be refuted by evidence, as in this case.

There is little ethical difference between an editor (or admin) who enables SqueakBox to avoid his own history and one who passively allows it to happen. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, all that is necessary for the triumph of SqueakBox is that good men do nothing. In this case, there is nothing on which to base an assertion of rational basis to delete, since any possible evidence is hidden from view. --SSBohio 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out. It's been made clear to you now, that the proper way to go forward with this now, if you MUST, is to contact ArbCom, per ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"contact ArbCom, per ArbCom"? That's a ridiculous statement. In other words, ArbCom has purview over what they have purview over? THat's the whole point SSB was, very civilly and very rightly, getting at. There's no accountability, no transparency now. This is being swept under the rug. Wow. That's like a "cause I said so" argument. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, see WP:ARBCOM, where it states (and I'll bold the requisite section):The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users, that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve, and to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing. I hope THAT allays your concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec²) Your statement is at odds with the facts. No one has said any such thing. If you think they have, please provide a diff. Or, if you're a member of ArbCom, identify that this really has gone to ArbCom. The closest anyone has come to saying what you claim above is to say that this should go to ArbCom. No one has said that it must, much less that it has. What you claim has been made clear to me hasn't even been said at all in this discussion. Show me where it has and I'll believe it. Tell me where it has, when I've read the comments and can find nothing of the sort, and I can't, in good conscience rely on words over facts. --SSBohio 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) once again, this is Arbitation Committee member NewYorkBrad stating that any further concerns/problems with this should be brought up privately with ArbCom. Specifically, Common sense suggests that discussion concerning alleged death threats and similar problems should not take place on-wiki. These pages are not to be restored. Any further concerns about the matter should be presented privately to the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Be - has it?

And closing an ANI that you are heavily involved in... well, it looks bad. Whether it is or not, it looks that way. I wouldn't close out something I was a strong proponent of closing in the discussion... that's like an AfD nom deleting an article in their favor after pretending to let the AfD play out... Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, it just looks like it has impropriety. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, VP, i was just restoring the archival by an uninvolved editor (Avruch?) that was promptly ignored. SirFozzie (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If only you knew... Avrunch is one of Squeak's puppets. (Not sockpuppets... I mean, one of those people who leaps to Squeak's "defense" no matter the issue... at least, that's what I and I trust others have seen of late. That's just as bad, but I give you the AGF of restoring what you thought was a legitimate close. Av is hardly an uninvolved party also.) VigilancePrime (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, do I need to object to this characterization? Meatpuppeting is a serious accusation, and unless you can back it up you shouldn't make it. ^Avruchtalk 18:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's meatpuppeting? I'm just saying that, as far as I have seen, you'd (blindly?) supported him regardless of the issue in any case I've seen. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed this one, but I don't see Avruch as anyone's puppet. The unfortunate fact is that SqueakBox is adept at getting people to see things his way. After all, he was instrumental in getting AfD & DRV to choose pseudoscience over social science. Avruch is a good guy from what I can tell. It's simply a bad situation that's put him in Squeak's camp on this one. Describing an editor as a puppet has special meaning here, and should be avoided unless meaning a sock- or meat-puppet, to avoid confusion. --SSBohio 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Should

(ec³)I couldn't seem to make the word should stand out enough that you would address my issue with what you're telling me, so I'm trying once again to make clear my concern. Saying something should go to ArbCom does not make it an ArbCom matter any more than saying I should be President moves me into the White House. You asserted that someone made clear to me that I must contact ArbCom. Should ≠ must. There are no privacy issues in discussing the deletion, as long as we keep the page deleted until a resolution is reached. --SSBohio 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that I've weighed in on SqueakBox's conduct at all, in any forum. It is irrelevant to any interaction I have had with him or any of you, or my comments in the current ANI thread. I didn't archive the thread because I thought everything he did was OK - I archived it because an Arbitrator directed future concerns to the Committee (thereby taking jurisdiction away from ANI). Since there was no object to continuing the discussion, it was closed. I really, truly do not see the need to continue on-wiki discussion about this subject. Whatever SqueakBox has done - he has asserted that there is an off-wiki death threat, and it is true even from my recollection that there is personally identifying information on his userpage. Restoring it so that the folks who have opposed him lately can use it for some unknown reason (I'm confident it isn't required for a case request to the Committee or for an RfC) is unnecessary and I can guarantee you the page will not be undeleted at your request. In any event, I have asked Newyorkbrad (who commented definitively in the thread, in case you missed it and the numerous links to it that have been pointed out to you) to weigh in on the closure of the thread. I don't know why it is necessary - you are clearly intelligent people, and you should be able to understand when a situation has been taken out of your hands. ^Avruchtalk 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, there was no direction that's been demonstrated. It just smacks of cover-up, intentional or unintentional. There was identifying info on his page (and a photo of him and his sig). That is why, as I have pointed out, I now support the deletions. The bigger issue is the vehemence of the discussion, the anti-SWATjester rhetoric, and the clear attempts by some to "make this go away". Still waiting on a truly definitive statement or directive. SHOULD does not equal MUST, and it certainly does not equal HAS. I think that's what SSB and I both are seeking, a HAS. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The plain English that Newyorkbrad wrote (without invoking his status one way or the other) was that this should be discussed at ArbCom-l. My intellect isn't the best on this project, but I see a difference between should and must. No one has been willing to explain why the two words actually mean the same thing, despite my knowledge of the language to the contrary. My recollection is that he couldn't be personally identified from his userpage. My recollection is also that Avruch and Squeakbox have found themselves on the same side of related deletion discussions, which is perhaps where VP is getting his concerns. I assume good faith in Avruch's actions, while disagreeing with them. --SSBohio 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, once again, the ArbCom has privacy issues under its remit, and you are violating the ArbCom's directive that any problems with this issue should be brought up with them PRIVATELY. You are wiki-lawyering to the extreme (like It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no "directive" Can you point us to the directive? (You are clouding the issue with the fallacious comparison.) VigilancePrime (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pointed out the section of WP:ARBCOM that states that privacy issues fall under the remit of ArbCom. I've pointed out the comments from an Arbitrator that for privacy reasons this falls under ArbCom and to bring it up privately. Are you saying you were unaware of these after I've pointed them out to you? SirFozzie (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Should and must have distinct meanings. They aren't even close. One is an opinion, the other is an order. You're trying to build an argument without the foundation to do so. What I should do and what I must do are two different things. --SSBohio 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And, even if, arguendo, I grant your point that Brad ordered us to ArbCom, then I must also consider that ArbCom only wants issues that can't be discussed publically. No one in this discussion has exposed Squeak's personal information. The questions are about the propriety of a deletion made under false pretenses and whether portions of Squeak's editing history that are important to judging his conduct have been thrown out. All that can be discussed without exposing his personal information, and the necessary edits can be restored without exposing any personally-identifying information. For the record, I've never noticed any actual personally identifying information on Squeak's userpage, no full name, address, telephone, etc. He's told us his age & marital status, what country he lives in, what country he came from, and the names of curent & former pets. I'm not sure even Sherlock Holmes himself could turn what was there into his identity. --SSBohio 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, SSB

Fozzie obviously has no intention of trying to understand your points. The same thing keeps getting brought up and your questions never answered. Answers are given, but not to the questions you ask. We've all been down this path before (with Squeak, ironically, in the past). You and I both know that they will never actually read and react to your concerns because you are in the right. And we wonder why so many of us (SWATjester comes to mind) just give up... VigilancePrime (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we're talking past each other here, but I'd suggest that the lack of clue is at best two way here. I've pointed out policy, and pointed out comments of the folks elected to deal with that policy, and all you can offer is "SHOULD <> MUST"... in other words, semantics. SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept that if it goes to ArbCom it can stay there, so long as the results are visible. That's what you're trying to assert with policy.

BUT, can you point out that it has gone to ArbCom? We have repeatedly asked.

SHOULD does not equal MUST

You just don't seem to get that. SSB and I understand the policy. Now, can you answer our questions? It is a two way street... and you're the one putting up the roadblock. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?? You're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. You've promptly ignored everything that I've posted... ArbCom has privacy issues under its remit, you've been ignoring that, NewYorkBrad said "Further problems? Email ArbCom" (ignored).

I've put in a request to NewYorkBrad to set things straight regarding Should and Must, which I should have done the first time you ignored what I said, so hopefully there's no Wiki-lawyering, semantic tricks, or anything that can be found in it, and hopefully will not have to deal with this again, once its been made ABUNDANTLY clear. Sheesh. SirFozzie (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a semantic question. Should is merely an expression of opinion. Must is a directive or command. If we go to dinner and I say you should have the veal, hat's my opinion. If I tell you you must have the veal because ArbCom says so, that's an order. :-) The English language is to be used like a knife, making fine, clean distinctions, not like a club. Do I ultimately care what Squeak deletes from his userspace? No. I only care that if there are edits that need preserved that those edits be preserved. No one has been willing to say whether there are, and the editor who was catalogueing Squeak's contentious edits had that page speedy deleted, again on a nomination by Squeak. The totality of circumstances points to something being concealed. Whether something is, in fact, being concealed can only be known by checking the facts. If anyone were to do that, I'd go away happy. --SSBohio 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're going to ask the ArbCom member to change his statement of recommendation to a directive. Cool. And you act as if that's too much to ask. Wow. You're the only one telling people what they must do. When this actually goes to ArbCom, let us know. That's what we're after... confirmation that it is being taken care of, something that, to date, has not been demonstrated. Thank you for (finally) taking care of the root issue. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

VP, while I appreciate the force with which you say your peace, I'm stating to think that it might be adding more heat than light to this conversation. My only issue here is that a false assertion has been made about what NYbrad said, and it's being used to unreasonably castigate me and order me about. --SSBohio 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lighter Note

SSB, on a lighter note (and since you're obviously online right now), could I trouble you to take a quick gander at this welcome template and tell me your thoughts on it as far as 1. appearance, 2. content/links, and 3. readability? I value your opinions and would like to get at least a couple sets of outside eyes on it before I start using it. Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome message. Send me an email and lets have a chat? Good idea, methinks, and lest face it we wouldn't lack for things to say. Thanks, SqueakBox —Preceding comment was added at 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, review what you've said about me both on this talk page and elsewhere. You've had ample opportunity, but have withdrawn none of it. Why would you want someone you consider a disgustingly and intolerably rude brat (as you call me) to email you? We do have much to discuss, but rectifying on-wiki honor needs to happen. --SSBohio 06:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Action

Given you have decided to continue your discussion about squeak box outside related talk pages (as seen here) and the fact that your comments on noticeboards are now getting personal, I am placing a ban on you discussing Squeak Box in any way on the project for 24 hours. If you decide to break this, I will block you for an appropriate length of time. I feel this is an appropriate action, so you can sustain constructive editing (rather than an outright block at this stage) but without continuing your harassment of Squeak Box. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec²)

1. It was entirely related. Preferential treatment of one editor over another is entirely relevant to what Jimbo did to Allstar. Consider what I've had to put up with from _________ on this page, on adult-child sex, on Justin Berry, etc. You & Jimbo were nowhere to be found then, were you?
2. I note that you only gave an example of my discussing _________ and gave no example of comments "now getting personal," how do I even know what you are referring to?
3. Further, in my opinion, you're far too involved in defending Jimbo & _________ to lay any claim to objectivity. Should you use your admin tools to gain the upper hand in this policy dispute, It will seriously diminish my respect for you.
4. Lastly, you have accused me of "harassment," which I take very seriously. I consider it to be a false allegation. How do I ban you from mentioning my name? Sadly, I'm not an admin. I can't bring a gun to your gunfight. I'm stuck here, unarmed, waiting for you to continue firing.

This is simply one more folly in a weeks-long farce. When/if you can address me calmly, I'll be glad to have a dialogue with you and heed what you say. If, instead, you throw your weight around, I can't, in good conscience, heed you. I mean, you can't even bring yourself to admit that anything I'm saying might be correct, as if I were so wrong as to be incapable of being right about anything.

A hard-won lesson in my life is to never give in to bullying. You have more power than I do; I can't stop you from harming me to your heart's content. I can't force you to treat me equitably, much less compassionately. I can only ask you to. So, I'm asking you to. What you do about it is within the realm of your own conscience and beyond my control. --SSBohio 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears that not only have you refused my request to discuss this here, you've also acted discourteously toward me. You posted this issue at WP:AN, which both expands the ForestFire and allows you to marshall support for your precipitous unilateral decree. This may be a monarchy, but you're not the monarch, Ryan. WP:AN specifically directs that: As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. If informing me was a courtesy, then not informing me was a discourtesy. Such tactics are strikingly similar to those of the editor we're not talking about here. Perhaps your ban was prompted by the need to protect a kindred spirit. My comments were not unrelated to the discussion on that talk page. Your advancing this ban based on that false premise and then repeating that false assertion at WP:AN moves your action from the realm of ill-advised to actively hostile. I'm at a loss as to why you've decided that one editor deserves your protection and another your attack? --SSBohio 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go through your points one by one;

1. It was not entirely related. You went to Allstarecho's talk page simply to stir up trouble, there was no need for that inflammatory post on his talk page - this was part of a wider campaign by you to go and troll as many debates as you could find over the matter - people had come to your talk and asked you too, but you didn't take advice.
2. Your getting personal was through taking it to new venues, and you had started to become more attacking on noticeboard, given you have previously been in conflict with him, you went to the noticeboard solely because it was SqueakBox - if this was anyone else, you wouldn't have been there - that's making things personal for a start.
3. I had no COI here - if SqueakBox had been doing a similar act, he'd have got banned from dicussing you. You simply can't see the disruption you were causing because it was coming from your own mouth.
4. You were harassing him plain and simple - comments were getting nasty and you were going on about it from forum to forum.

Everyone on AN has so far endorsed my ban on you, you should understand that it probably because people have been getting very angry with your behaviour lately on the admin noticeboards and they had enough, if that hadn't have been the case, it wouldn't have been endorced. When I took it to AN, the post was not about you, it was about my action and that's all I wanted reviewing, so there was no need to inform you. We don't inform blocked users when we want a review, and this was a similar situation. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my response, where I address what I perceive to be the issues in the above:

1. You claimed it was unrelated. Now you claim it's not entirely related. You seem to be softening your position without acknowledging changing your previous position.
   1. I went to Allstar's talkpage because I saw it mentioned at AN/I; When there, I saw yet another editor who was being treated harshly by the same administrators (collectively) who have, for so long, failed to do anything about the guy you forbade me to talk about.
   2. Unless you're my psychoanalyst, your assertion of my intent is simply unsupported speculation, in this case a speculation that paints me in a falsely negative light.
   3. I simply hadn't gone to troll as many debates as I could find. RfD, AD, DrV, MfD, AN/I, AN, Talk:*, User talk:*, etc.: All of these debates were started by others. Have you similarly admonished anyone else who spread this ForestFire? No, just me. I'm a problem, but someone else who did the same thing is just fine. How does that work, exactly?
2. Your getting personal was through taking it to new venues. OK, how does that work? Discussing this issue is not a way that it gets personal. And how had I started to get more attacking? You make a lot of accusations, but provide nothing to support them.
   1. You assert that I went to the noticeboard because it was ______, as if that were a problem. I'd already seen him use false statements to get other unflattering statements deleted. His use of a false claim of WP:VANISH to get his userpage edits deleted raised alarm bells for me. I would have reacted the same to any editor who had his history. Your accusation is incorrect.
   2. Your COI is evident. You backed ______, whom you agreed with on (for example) certain XfDs regarding this subject area, and which I opposed both of you on. You failed to admonish him for any of his bad acts, current or prior. Rather, you come here & vent your spleen on me. My treatment was not equitable to his and it supports my contention re your COI.
   3. Perhaps you simply can't see any points where I'm right because they come from someone you've defined so negatively.
3. So, amorphous people have been getting very angry with my behavior? Interesting, but beyond refutation, as it makes no certain allegation other than that some people (2, 3, 456? how many?) somewhere are very angry. Don't just insinuate. If it's true, then show it.
   1. Is it any wonder that you'd find support for your action from among the very people who've been crusading to eliminate any mention of this subject matter from the project, some of whom have been actively protecting ______ from the consequences of his actions for months. How much am I expected to take silently before I'm justified in speaking out? Apparently, more than I have, considering my punishment for so speaking.
   2. WP:AN says that you should, as a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting. I was mentioned in your posting. I am an editor. You didn't provide me the courtesty that was due. Perhaps (to paraphrase your comment) You simply can't see the discourtesy you've shown because it was coming from your own mouth.

Blind unsupported accusations are inherently weak. You've made a lot of those in your comments. I can't properly address any of them because I don't know how you're defining your subjective terms or what I've said that you consider to be an exemplar of each of the wriongs you've catalogued. You've come here, as far as I can tell, to criticize, to accuse, to thump your chest, and to issue your threats. My original question was never answered: Why didn't you try talking first? (don't point fingers at anyone else; Why didn't you?) --SSBohio 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No wikilawyering - AN has supported this decision so you should consider your own conduct, not mine. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another false allegation? Where do you see wikilawyering? You've come here and crapped all over me, steadfastly refusing to support your allegations with anything other than more allegations. Pointing that out is not wikilawyering.

I have considered my actions. Some of my comments were excessively intemperate, I agree. If that's what this is all about, then you win. I admit that I let a particularly insidious but effective bit of deception get under my skin and I was improper in my response.

Other of your allegations are demonstrably false. Those are yours to own. As I've been told repeatedly, if I have an issue with another editor, I should take it up with that editor. That's what I'm doing. Now, can you cut out the pettifoggery and address the issues I raised? --SSBohio 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed my actions with you, I've discussed why I think the ban is warrented, I've put it up for review at AN, AN has endorsed it - I honestly haven't got anything else to say. I'm not getting into a long winded diologue that is not going to end with us both agreeing, and just waste time going round in circles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was confident that this could be worked out, but, if you're not willing to talk this through, I can't see how. Is there another means of dispute resolution we can employ? --SSBohio 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think when he said 'Not entirely related' he was responding to your claim that it was 'entirely related'. ^Avruchtalk 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • You have a point. The two are related, but not as emphatically as I made it sound. However, they aren't unrelated, in the way Ryan asserted. --SSBohio 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Directing my attention elsewhere

I was just going to come by here and suggest, with respect, that you might wish to find another occupation for your time than the issues surrounding SqueakBox. Problem users out themselves, they don't need crusades to do it for them. I've found your reasoning at the various deletion events to be very sound - it hasn't convinced me to change my position, but you certainly make good points in a very focused way. I would argue that the same end you're trying to achieve can be had through additions to existing articles, rather than the current article. It does seem, though, that you have focused on Squeak as the root of the problem and have opposed him in a number of forums. It does you a disservice, I think, and I'd hate to see stronger action taken on the basis of a harassment complaint. ^Avruchtalk 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The user you name has made a pattern and practice of attacking me mercilessly. Where were you gunslingers when all that was going on? The user you name has been instrumental in getting good editors banned from this project through secret Star Chamber proceedings. The user you name has been able to do everything he accuses others of with impugnity throughout my interaction with him. As I alluded to above, I can't compel anyone to administer this project equitably. I'm simply struck by the disparity: I get beat up and no one offers me an aspirin; he stubs his toe and the entire rescue squad comes thundering over the hill. The inconsistency is marked. I've been brought to tears by two people in this project: the one I can't name and the one who told me I can't name him.

To dispel a misconception, I don't consider the user you name to be the root of the problem; He's simply been nourished by a climate favorable to him and his techniques. I will oppose anyone who takes action to abuse policy, game the system, and treat process like a magic eight ball (shake it until it gives you the answer you want). I'm ashamed that people I otherwise respect have so far been taken in by his latest shenanigans. You're familiar with the expression "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?" We're being fooled. No one (so far) has even been willing to investigate my concerns. Shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

With regard to the moral panic deletions, I've had one central point to make: We are in no danger from pedophiles. The world isn't going to wake up one day, rush to their computers, search Wikipedia, and decide that adult-child sex is OK; Pretending that the adult-child sex article is about pedophilia is not only a red herring, it's a rouge herring. You're a good guy, and I thought, of all the comments in opposition, yoiurs were some of the most thoughtful. I really think that if you look at this logically, without regard to the "ick factor," that there's room for an article on the topic. I thought I could reach you, along with the couple of people I did reach. I'm sorry my skills were insufficient, as the fault is likely not within your understanding but in my explaining.

With everything I've seen the last few months, I sincerely question what we're doing here, if this is what it comes down to. Although, the traffic to & from Wikipedia at least slightly slows the volume of spam being sent, so it's not a complete waste. There's always a bright side.  :-) --SSBohio 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• With regards to the article - in a perfect world, you are absolutely right. I am convinced that there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about the history of pedophilia (or, without using the term, sexual relationships between adults and minors). The history would obviously include the various norms associated with the phenomena - and these could be described neutrally with success and without being seen as advocating deviant behavior. The unfortunate reality, however, is that an article such as we have been discussing (and on a free and open and anonymous forum such as Wikipedia) will eternally be a magnet for advocates. Such advocacy is extremely disruptive to the project and poses a significant harm to the reputation of the encyclopedia. The only way to avoid reputational damage is to take a hard line - and that hard line includes zero tolerance for possible or actual pro-pedophilia content. Even discussing it in a neutral way is for all practical purposes impossible. It may be the one area where adhering strictly and with academic detachment to the core NPOV policy as written is impossible - in order to protect what we do here, the project has effectively endorsed a point of view. Thus, the NPOV policy is used to delete the possibly pro or arguably neutral-pedophilia article but not to force anti-pedophilia articles to conform. I won't claim that this solution is ideal, its only the best among available options in the real world in which Wikipedia is a media darling and the 8th (or 9th!) most visited website in the world.

• Incidentally, there is a discussion about your topic ban on WP:AN which so far is endorsing Ryan's action. I would caution you to please make every attempt to assume good faith on the part of the admins involved in this whole saga. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me corruption. The effect you are seeing is the transient impact of notoriety - the drama surrounding these deletion debates brings far greater scrutiny. ^Avruchtalk 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the thing about making an exception to NPOV. Once there's an exception, there is no NPOV. It's a line that simply cannot be crossed if we're actually intending to write an encyclopedia. I hate to think what would happen here if the good people of the Westboro Baptist Church got the chance to carve out their exception to NPOV. As a homosexual, I'm certain I edit with people who would just as soon see me dead. Is there a moral equivalency between my sexuality and a pedophile's? No. But, once we say that it's ok to treat (group X) as a lesser class of person, there is nothing to stop someone else from grouping us into that lesser class. Reference First they came... by Martin Niemoller. Pedophiles are hated. That doesn't mean they can't be here or issues of adult-child sex can't be discussed.

• I'm glad Ryan is able to rally people around his cause. From what I've seen of the AN, it's usually all boys together and only occasionally the locus of actual discussion. I assume good faith in admins as a whole, but it's manifestly a bad idea for Ryan to exercise admin authority when he's actively taken sides on this issue. I used to think better of him. And Guy. And Tony. And Cyde. And Phil. And Will Beback. And Herostratus. But, I've seen enough from each of them to alter my opinion, and I've seen enough times when influential people are given a pass for what would get me blocked (or worse) that it makes me question whether we still intend to write an encyclopedia (which requires editors) or form a self-reinforcing clique, for which editors are entirely unnecessary. I particularly hate how little time I've spent editing articlespace lately. The only thig I hate more is the prospect of watching this project shoot itself in the foot in the name of an extraordinary popular delusion coupled with activity indistinguishable from outright collusion. Look at the Durova issue, look at the IRC issue. It's becoming quite reminiscent of totalitarian government.

• BTW, please note that I've never been blocked, nor have I had an RfC, mediation, or RfArb ever filed on me. I'm not a disruptive influence. I write articles. Others delete them. This disappoints me. Admins who undermine the community's consensus-building process and use their tools to gain the upper hand against editors really disappoint me. Admins whose first response to a perceived user conduct issue (and I see where he could perceive there to be such an issue) is to sanction the user without even attempting polite discussion, well, I oughtn't say how I feel about them. I'm really thinking that this was the last straw. I can't edit here under threat like this. I may just WP:VANISH, too, but I'll mean it. I'm tired of getting kicked in the head, and a less stressful hobby (bullfighting?) looks preferable. --SSBohio 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond more fully tomorrow - but what you've made is a slippery slope argument. The logical problem is that slippery slope arguments depend on the enforcement of precedent - an enforcement that is generally absent here, particularly in the area of content. I would argue that outside of the court system (and perhaps even there) decisions that potentially have 'slippery slope liability' must be made despite the risk in order to deal with real-world problems. If our problems were so slight that we never had to make a call liable to a slippery slope attack, then we would be (a) golden in our paradise and (b) having zero impact on the world. Neither of those are true, I hope, and so some decisions that contravene our non-absolute principles must be made. ^Avruchtalk 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see where that perspective can be supported from what I wrote. However, my intent was to talk about NPOV as a sort of bright line requirement, not a slippery slope. It matters not how much over the line we go, once our POV is impure, it won't become pure again. The adult-child sex topic is covered in thin slices in a number of articles, but there's no article (anymore) that gives an overall perspective the way the deleted article could have. Deleting this article is, to me, every bit as bad as if we deleted images of Muhammad or refrained from uttering the most sacred name of God. It's not that we'd get worse down the slippery slope, it's that everything over the line is sufficiently tainted as to taint us. --SSBohio 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Valued: ACS userpage

(apologies to User:VigilancePrime for copying his template)

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

• You may be interested in a current DRV discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
• Recently, the page User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user Guy brought the page to MfD and won by arguments referring to a different piece, a mainspace article of the same name.
• Thus, there has now been a DRV opened. Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this DRV discussion. Please do.
• If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested

If you're interested, there's a thread at ANI that you may wish to read and/or con which you may want to comment. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, thought I ought to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Replied on my talkpage. Avruch ^T 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)