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