Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 1 November 2007 (Emails). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--Archive (349 kb)

Block

Having reviewed your contributions, I have decided to block you. You have made extensive problematic edits to pedophilia-related articles, including this creation and which amount to pedophilia advocacy, and continue to this day. You have also engaged in ruleslawyering and arguing hard against blocks of pro-pedophilia editors, including Dyskolos. You may appeal this block privately to arbcom-l. Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As an outside, third party I question the legitimacy of this block. Bstone 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bstone. I think it would be more helpful if you said the reasons why the block is illegitimate. A.Z. 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this block and believe that it is justified for the reasons given. In addition, the editor has also made numerous postings that appear aimed at inflaming disputes in unhelpful ways. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We will agree to disagree. The knee-jerk blocking is becoming endemic. Bstone 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the block. The article on adult-child sex and the section are encyclopedic. The article has been nominated for deletion and survived. There was a deletion review and most people thoght the closing admin made the correct decision. That section that you linked to is currently on the article Rind et al, by the way. So I deny the accusations of advocacy of anything. I added a large part of the criticism of pedophilia to the article Adult-child sex, and have expressed numerous times my desire for Misplaced Pages to have as much criticism as possible. I personally would want to read all the criticism out there. I had the idea to create the article because I couldn't find anywhere on Misplaced Pages the discussion on whether adult-child sex was OK or not.

Yes, I argued hard against Dyskolos block. I think it wasn't disruptive.

I was sad to know that you agree with the block, Will Beback. A.Z. 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I never intended to inflame any dispute that I can remember of. I agree that sometimes I post things far from being the most productive at the time. Sometimes I get angry. Could you link to specific posts by me, so I can see what exactly you're referring to? A.Z. 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bstone here - this is not funny anymore. Blocks such as this need more legitimate justification that what is being stated. If there are other reasons for this block, then it would look less suspicious to simply state them outright, then to carry out all sentencing in secret. The legitimacy of this block is very suspect, and I will inquire into it when I have the time. For now, I recommend for A.Z. to appeal this block, and I hope another admin will see the folly in blocking this editor. ~ Homologeo 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to the ArbCom. A.Z. 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate its come to this, A.Z., but you can't say you haven't been warned. Personally, I don't agree with (what I consider to be) a rather hysterical response to editors who don't tow the paedophilia is bad line, but the fact is that there is little community tolerance for that type editor. Rightly or wrongly, thats how it works. Time and time again, A.Z. you have maneuvered yourself into discussions and debates that appear pointy in the extreme. Not only that, but you simply refuse to let the point go, to the extent that most consider it trolling (cf. your abortive RfA, the circular discussion about the Ref Desk guidelines, the Administrator abuse article fiasco). It doesn't really matter if that isn't your intention, because that is how it comes across. This sort of contrarian debate might be tolerated from extremely constructive contributors, but your contributions to the encyclopaedia are dwarfed by meta discussion. Arbcom may see things differently, but I think the events of the last few days suggest that Misplaced Pages-of-the-near-future may not be the best place for you. Somewhere like Wikiversity - where discussion for the sake of it is positively welcomed - might be a better fit. Rockpocket 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was starting to contribute more to the encyclopedia. A.Z. 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that hadn't gone unnoticed. Perhaps ArbCom will consider that trend on review. Rockpocket 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AZ, please keep us updated here as to the progress of your case. Like I said, I am an uninterested third party who, after reviewing the facts, emphatically disagrees with the knee-jerk blocking. I will keep a keen eye on your case. Bstone 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. A.Z. 03:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth?

As an uninvolved editor, I see this block as very capricious and inappropriate. This creation does give undue weight to one side of an issue, but that is certainly not a punishable offense. I really don't see anything wrong with edits like these -- I found it slightly confusing (let's not forget that AZ's English isn't perfect), but it represents conflicting sides of an issue reasonably, if not perfectly, keeping in mind that balance is measured in terms of the article as a whole and not by section.

Editors are legitimately blocked for disruption, not for letting another editor fill in an alternative POV to balance out a sentence. If AZ had aggressively edit warred to, say, remove representation of other viewpoints, then it might be reason for a warning/temporary block, and potentially an indefinite block if the behavior was persistent, but that didn't happen. Another open discussion like this one probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. A warning would be defensible. An indef block in this case just seems complete outlandish for a well-established editor. I realize that a substantial chunk of AZ's editing has been in pedophilia-related articles, but only a handful have been questionable, and those are not indefensible by any means. I really don't see how anyone not vehemently opposed to every opinion AZ has could think that he's doing more harm than good. — xDanielx /_C 05:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx, trust me when I say that you're not the only one baffled, confused, and a bit ashamed by this block. ~ Homologeo 06:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a shame to see A.Z. unable to edit at all but I can certainly understand why he was indefinitely blocked and, given the block, endorse that he shouldn't be editing the pedophile articles in the way he has been, SqueakBox 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point to any bad edits by me to pedophile articles? A.Z. 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of adult-child sex and subverting its rfd is one example, supporting pedophilia in the talk pages and calling for me to be blocked for editing in a way you didn't like, removing an NPOV tag repeatedly without trying to resolve the dispute, these come off the top of my head, SqueakBox 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to diffs (besides the created article, which AfD and DRV supported)? You're not exactly in a great position to give a neutral summary of AZ's behavior, considering the history of disputes. And as A.Z. has made 6+ thousand edits, I reckon you'll need more than a few. — xDanielx /_C 06:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't need to do anything whatsoever, neither justify the block by someone else or defend my own behaviour but given your comments I felt I wanted to say what I think, and that is that. I do think A.Z. came unstuck on the pedophile articles which he has not been editing for long but began to doing in a very aggresivve manner by calling for me to be blocked to resolve a content dispute. My real point is that it is a shame A.Z. can't edit at all when it is his pedophile editing that has led to the block, SqueakBox 06:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just wanted to be sure that no one assumed you were an uninvolved editor. — xDanielx /_C 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Homologeo nor I. And my comments were primarily directed at A.Z., SqueakBox 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I review this block and the circumstances surrounding it, the more I hang I head in shame to call myself an editor on this project. Let this block be undone. Bstone 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is absolutely ludicrous. -Wooty   10:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want your opinion and arguments concerning this block to be taken into consideration, send an e-mail message to mailto:arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.  --Lambiam 11:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed some debate to the archive; Dmcdevit is a checkuser and there are arbitration cases underpinning this, also some hints of foundation issues. It would be better to wait for the outcome of A.Z.'s (necessarily) private discussions with the arbitrators rather than engage in speculation and drama. Your patience is appreciated. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am getting a bit sick and tired of hearing the excuse of "Pedophilia Advocacy" dragged out every time an edit is made which is slightly to the left of center on an article related to child sexuality or child sexual abuse. These are content disputes, which should be resolved by consensus. What seems to be happening is that Arbcom is abusing indefinite blocks to selectively pick off editors in these content disputes, leaving the articles to be entirely edited by people with a certain obvious bias, facts notwithstanding. If this continues, all these articles should be tagged with a disclaimer, much like we do with the articles on Perpetual Motion Machines. Enrico Dirac 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would request that you hold off the drama until A.Z. has had time to discuss this with the arbitrators. Drama is unlikely to help and may well make matters worse. I am sure that each case is viewed strictyl on its merits, but that, too, is between A.Z. and the arbitrators. There is a reaosn why these things tend to be done privately, which is that the very subject tends to excite a degree of hysteria which is not conducive to rational debate. Better to click Special:Random a few times and find some typos to fix, come back in a few days and see what transpires. That's my view, anyway. I think in the long run that calm is better than a baying mob, for or against the editor in question. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

JzG, it's great that you're trying to minimize drama, but archiving very recent, largely pertinent discussions on someone else's talk page in order to conceal opinions isn't the way to go. Out banning policy outlines the conditions under which a user may be banned, and "some admin makes the decision against community consensus" isn't one of them. Regular administrative bans are expected to . If you want to rewrite policy such that regular administrative bans are presumed to be valid regardless of what consensus says, and can only be overridden by a special, private arbcom procedure, then you're welcome to propose it, though my feeling is that not many will agree with you.

The policy is that bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Bans which the community is opposed to may also be reversed by the arbcom, of course, but arbcom is not needed to reverse bans which the community finds inappropriate, unless arbcom specifically forbids an unban. If arbcom doesn't offer a decisive stand on it, which they typically do not in cases like these, then the decision is the community's, not Dmcdevit's alone.

So, please don't attempt to silence such a discussion, as it is perfectly in line with our community's policies (and IMO rightly so). I really do appreciate your well-intended attempts to cut back on unnecessary drama, but while there's no reason to get hyped up about common bans of malintended vandals or trolls, an indef ban of a long-time contributor who many consider to be in good standing certainly justifies a discussion, which may or may not influence the eventual outcome. — xDanielx /_C 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in the original message above, which people seem to have ignored, appeals should be directed to ArbCom. This is an action on behalf of ArbCom, and I find the lack of assumptions of good faith here appalling. Have you noticed that this isn't exactly a community discussion, and that it isn't exactly providing a forum likely to result in an unblocking. Rather, it's being used for soapboxing, and isn't productive. That's not a dismissal of criticism; I think it's clear here that several people are drawing conclusions without seeking to get the necessary background; it's fine with me if you disagree in the end, but if you truly want to do something about it, email arbcom with your concerns instead of going on about it here. ArbCom hasn't had a single mail about it. Dmcdevit·t 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it an "action on behalf of ArbCom"? Per the banning policy, the Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy usually following a request for arbitration. That doesn't mean that a former arbcom member has God status to issue bans freely with or without consensus. If you as much as had a discussion with arbcom (which is still far short of an RFAR), you didn't mention it in your notice here on in the block summary. I find it discomforting that you're not willing to spend more than 10 minutes explaining an indefinite ban of an editor who has no doubt invested hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours to the project. — xDanielx /_C 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the latest of about two dozen blocks made on behalf of Arbcom with either some vague muttering about Pedophilia Advocacy or no explanation given, all of editors who have taken issue with Misplaced Pages's slant on certain topics. I think a lot of editors are unwilling to engage Arbcom over this because of the perception that Arbcom is a non-transparent secretive process to which the community isn't privy. I think there needs to be an open public debate over these blocks, and their appropriateness. Arbcom isn't such a forum. Enrico Dirac 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I share the same concerns -- they're a reasonable group of people, but it doesn't help that the banning admin is part of the private email group who will no doubt belittle any concerns that are raised against his action (as any involved person with an opinion likely would). I assume that's why our banning policy is that bans can be applied following public ArbCom proceedings rather than private decisions made by one or more ArbCom members. — xDanielx /_C 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also been following this situation closely, and when I tried to bring it to a public forum, I was shot down and referred to ArbCom. I have had no reply yet, other than the automated "held for moderation" email. So to say "ArbCom hasn't had a single mail about it." is absolutely false. If this is indeed policy, as I was told, then this does need to be discussed publicly. Keeping this to a list of a dozen or so users only serves to inflame the situation by allowing for speculation, and does not provide any measure of increased enlightenment or trust.

You want to end speculation? Then nip it at the bud. If there are foundation issues at hand (as I suspected and mentioned in both my email and my AN/I post), then make it clear. If information on how this policy is written is being withheld because this may lead to an office action, tell us. If this is being mulled as a potential benevolent dictator decision by Jimbo Wales, then say so. I think if anything, saying that "people are drawing conclusions without seeking to get the necessary background" , is the exact opposite of what's happening here. People do want the background, but none is made available--and that was exactly the point I made on my email and AN/I post. Whatever forum may be appropriate for discussing a policy to "induce a chilling effect on pro-pedophilia advocacy" by blocking users, that forum must be made public. If not, then the reasons for a private forum must be made explicit. Anything else, and you risk a snowball effect of people hearing about secrecy and cabal at the highest echelons of Misplaced Pages that invariably risks spiraling out of control and driving people away from the project.

We're all volunteers here, and to the extent that we're made aware of extenuating circumstances, we'll accept that a policy or decision, for better or for worse, was adopted with the best of intentions. I can't say the same of a policy or decision where no one one outside of a handful witnessed the deliberations, let alone had a say.--Dali-Llama 05:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

Having reviewed your editing, I have to say that your ideas on child sexual abuse are rather naive. You also have a habit of contesting these and other opinions on pages not related to articles. None of this I see as intrinsically blockable, in fact, for me, it just counts as character. Your editing is what should count towards your blocking, though, and in this department, I see no error. You seem to make intelligent and well-balanced contributions to the articles themselves, without a bias towards pedophiliac feelings or actions.

The reasons given for the block are spurious. The first link showed the creation of an article that has gone on to be endorsed and built upon by the community, surviving deletion review. The second showed that you added peer reviewed study information to an article designed to view adult-child sex outside of its current conceptualisation. Although I agree with the child sexual abuse theories, there must also be articles that describe the core entity as opposed to one, albeit dominant theory. In fact, I see recent your editing as honourable, and would like to see you unblocked. It appears that the administrator involved is waging war against community consensus as well as diversity and freedom of information.

Good luck. GrooV 05:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Emails

We now have the emails which were sent to the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter. Fred Bauder 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)