User talk:PetraSchelm - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 18 April 2008 (→To Grutness: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:00, 18 April 2008 by Grutness (talk | contribs) (→To Grutness: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, PetraSchelm, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd Participiation

If you're going to participate in Articles for Deletion discussions, please make sure to include a reason with your vote. Just giving a vote doesn't have any weight, since we use consensus instead of vote-counting (read WP:CONSENSUS). Just thought I'd let you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV

Please review WP:NPOV, our policy on neutral point of view. Neutral point of view applies as equally to pedophilia related articles as it does any other article. Just because pedophilia is vile and disgusting, does not mean that you get to skew articles against it, or delete references to it via AFD. Equating pedophilia to child abuse is not only blatantly POV but is factually incorrect, and is something you need to be very careful to avoid doing. ⇒SWATJester 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should actually read the lists which were named "Pedophila and Child Sexual Abuse in film/theatre/song/books, and have all been renamed by a small pedophile faction "sexual attraction to children in film/theatre/song/books" before you jump to conclusions. Meaning, the lists all clearly describe child sexual abuse. Your argument is a specious one, based I suspect on not reading the lists. What is at issue is not pedophilia=child abuse, it's whether a list of instances of child sexual abuse can be called a list of instances of sexual attraction to children. Certainly a a song about a child who is raped is not about "sexual attraction to children" from the perspective of a child who has been raped, or from the perspective of mainstream society. It is only about "sexual attraction" from the fringe point of view of the one who is sexually attracted, namely a pedophile. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the lists. The lists are fine, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for keeping them. You, however, after only a couple of days of editing, have seemed to find our deletion debates and have nominated several pedophilia related articles for deletion. I'm just warning you now to very carefully review WP:NPOV, as well as WP:CIVIL in your assertions that pedophiles are a fringe point of view. For someone so new to wikipedia, you seem to know about some of our more esoteric policies. Frankly, I'm suspicious that you are a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but regardless of that, you need to maintain a neutral point of view. That's something that's non negotiable in Misplaced Pages. ⇒SWATJester 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't at all addressed the recent name change of the lists, and how the new name reflects only an extreme fringe POV. And yes, pedophiles are an extreme fringe POV, so per NPOV, they cannot rename child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children" to suit their POV. The mainstream POV is that child sexual abuse is child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see this is controversial, based on Swat and others comments so I suggest you make a request at WP:Requested moves and that we try to find a consensus on the talk page about moving the name of the articles, I certainly agree myself though that the names should contain the word child sexual abuse if that is what the material contains. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to request a move, but I will second it if you nominate. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I recommend you also read WP:NPA? Your accusation of paedophilia ("renamed by a small pedophile faction") is a serious violation of it. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the people who were most vocal in getting the articles renamed "sexual attraction to children" from "sexual abuse and pedophilia" were self-identified pro-pedophile. One of them states on his userpage that his "agenda" is pederasty articles, and has claimed that 13 year old boys can consent to sex. Another, Tony Sandel, clearly identifies himself as pro-pedophile on his userpage. I don't get the impression that that they think pedophile is an insult; on the contrary that is how they identify themselves. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Until just over a year ago pedophiles got away with self-identifying on wikipedia, then after a thread at Jimbo's talk they all got purged. Since then the wikipedia consensus has been that one cannot identify as a pedophile or accuse someone else of being one without sound evidence (as for instance a user banned for attempting to solicit a minor on wikipedia). You can say "you are promoting a pro pedophilia viewpoint" to another user but if you call them a pedophile an admin may block you. And you are not going to be any help if you are indefinitely blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that/that there were such fine distinctions in how to refer. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notification

I've started a section on the Incidents board pertaining to your personal attacks: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent.2C_serious_personal_attacks_by_User:PetraSchelm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above, I would comment that - as mentioned above - that self identifying as a paedophile is sufficient to be banned from editing Misplaced Pages, and therefore that claiming someone is or may have sympathy toward paedophiles, or child sexual abuse, is a very serious accusation. While expression of opinion is generally encouraged within Misplaced Pages this is one area where it is not, and as such I am formally warning you that making such accusations on the basis of your interpretation of anothers contributions, discussions or arguments, will likely result in being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please contain your comments only toward content, and never toward editors in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that very semantic and weird, because in the case of Haiduc, he clearly states on his user page that his "agenda" is pederasty articles. According to the terminology on the Misplaced Pages Pedophile Article Watch Project, this is the definition of pederast: "Pederast: a male homosexual Ephebophile. It is idiomatically common, but not scholarly, to call such persons paedophiles." So his "agenda" is pederasty, and pederasts are commonly known as pedophiles. How is he not pro-pedophila, and how is he not advertising that on his user page? Also, he has stated on Misplaced Pages that he thinks boys aged thirteen and over can consent to sex/that sex between adults and boys over 13 are not "abuse." If that is not self-identifying as pro-pedophile, then what is? -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You were warned. Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. As LessHeard vanU mentioned, we take this very seriously. If you persist after your block expires, the next one will be significantly longer. ⇒SWATJester 23:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetraSchelm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked by admin who is in a dispute with me on several AfDs and Jimbo's talkpage

Decline reason:

Not blocked directly. Please follow the instructions. You will also want to read WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

PetraSchelm actually is blocked, according to the blocklist. Seems to be a bug. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by me, however, not in a dispute with her, but rather enforcing Less Heard vanU's final warning. My "dispute" is simply warning her about NPOV and NPA. ⇒SWATJester 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Swatjester most certainly involved in several disputes with me today--note that here he not only voted "Strong keep" at this Afd, but also accused me of bad faith for nominating the article at the same time :http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents&diff=prev&oldid=203827303 Not only was it not nominated in bad faith, but there is much good faith discussion by me, and no consensus at the AfD.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see above

Decline reason:

for the same reasons that the previous admin declined your request, and you have said nothing new. You were warned about making personal attacks, yet persisted. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked by admin in several disputes with me on afds and jimbo's talk

Decline reason:

SwatJester simply warned you - this does not constitute a "dispute". Your attacks are not acceptable, and persisted after you had been warned. — Hersfold 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked by admin in a dispute with me

Decline reason:

Once again, SWATJester was not in a dispute with you (giving a warning doesn't mean you have a dispute with a person). Once the block expires, refrain from personal attacks and remain civil. — Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

blocked by admin who was in dispute with me on several afds and jimbo's talkpage/also was not making personal attacks and had no chance to respond on AN/I. note: there is repeated confusion regarding the unblock requests. the first admn, Yamla, did not notice that I was blocked, and the second has confused Yamla with Swatjester. No one has reviewed my original request.

Relevant contributions mostly found here:

20:34, 6 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents‎ (→List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents: Strong keep)
20:33, 6 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents‎ (→List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents: Strong keep)
20:32, 6 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PetraSchelm‎ (→Please review WP:NPOV: new section)
20:29, 6 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimbo Wales‎ (→pedophile activism on Misplaced Pages)

Note: Swatjester most certainly involved in several disputes with me today--note that here he not only voted "Strong keep" at this Afd, but also accused me of bad faith for nominating the article at the same time :http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents&diff=prev&oldid=203827303 Not only was it not nominated in bad faith, but there is much good faith discussion by me, and no consensus at the AfD.

Note that he again votes "strong keep" at another AfD, and accuses me of bad faith for nominating the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents&diff=prev&oldid=203827303 Note also that at 20:29 he disagrees with me on Jimbo's talkpage about pedophilia related articles. Three minutes later he accuses me of pov issues because we disgree. One minute after that he votes "strong keep" on one of the pedo articles at AfD, and accuses me of bad faith. A minute after that, he does the same thing at another pedo article. In the space of five minutes, he engaged in a dispute with me in four places on the same subject. Blocking me later is surely not impartial. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note also the prior discussion at AN/i today, initiated by me, in which Swatjester and I do not agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pedophile_activism_on_Wikipedia -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, new users don't usually know what admins do. You've just given even more evidence that you're a sockpuppet. ⇒SWATJester 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A conversation

I think that blocking you for a week was an overreaction. And I unprotected your user page. So I'm on your side, OK? So can we talk about some of the issues.

You can't call people pedophiles. This is hurtful. And you have no knowledge of how they get their jollies in meatspace, nor does this matter. The editors in question may be pedophiles, but they may be trolls, or effete, or useful idiots, or nihilists.

You can refer to the pattern of an editor's contribution as (say) "tending to indicate a pattern of supporting a pro-pedophile activist point of view" or whatever. You see the difference? You have to be careful and polite. I know this is not easy given the subject matter which is highly emotional. But you need to be able to keep your cool if you want to edit here.

Do you understand what I'm saying to point? There's lots more but that's all for now. I want to help you so I hope we can have a dialoge. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely confusing to me how the term "pedophile" is being used/defined on Misplaced Pages. For example, here is how Tony Sandel defines it:

Hi. Pedophilia is a love (or sexual attraction) to children. There's a frequent debate on Misplaced Pages about the age of children and no consensus! One reason is the different use of the word in the USA and in teh Uk and between the general public and medical people. No sexual activity (illegal or legal) is implied in the correct use of the word pedophile and many people with pedophilic inclinations never commit any offense. CSA starts when sexual activity is initiated. The media frequently uses the word pedophile as being symonymous with child molester. Tony 13:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Tony

It seems that what Tony is saying is that a pedophile is specifically someone who is attracted to children but does not act on the attraction, and that therefore he does not believe it is a derogatory term, since pedophiles do not de facto commit child sexual abuse. Pedophile=merely thoughts/feelings; CSA=pedophiles acting on their thoughts/feelings. A different definition of pedophile, a derogatory one used by Misplaced Pages to ban people, also seems to exist but is not clearly defined anywhere. Do you see the confusion? Tony says pedophile and specifically means the "good" definition/that it is a term describing those who do *not* commit sexual assault on children.

I think advocating to define "pedophile" in an idiosyncratically positive way--it never includes acting on attraction to children--is pro-pedophilia activism. I never called Tony a pedophile, I said he was self-identified pro-pedophile. "Pedophilia is a love (or sexual attraction) to children" is how he defines pedophilia. I don't think one can look at his definition of pedophilia as "love" of children (sexual attraction is even parenthetical there) and not get the impression that he is pro-pedophilia, as this definition of pedophilia is so positive--pedophilia is practically laudatory, because it equals the love of children. Surely love is a positive thing. And it doesn't involve child sexual abuse, etc. This is not the mainstream view of pedophilia. But, from Tony's perspective, it seems being pro-pedophilia is being pro-"love" and anti-abuse. So if one says Tony is pro-pedophile, one is not saying he is pro-child abuse, per his definition. What does it mean to say Tony is pro-pedophile? By his definition, it means to say he is pro-childlove or something. By Misplaced Pages's unspecified banning definition, which is presumably that pedophiles=child molestors, it appears to mean accusing him of the opposite of his definiton. His definiton itself is the pro-pedophile stance is what I am saying.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But if she's going to do that, she needs to provide adequate citations, something that not only did she refuse to do before, but in fact misrepresented. Moreover, referring to editors as trolls, effete, useful idiots, etc. all are unacceptable. As for unprotecting the talk page, that was a highly inappropriate decision, given the extensive unblock template abuse used. Petra, if you reinsert the unblock tag, your talk page will be protected again. ⇒SWATJester 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a single shred of evidence that I have ever called anyone "trolls, effete, useful idiots" etc.? (Because I have NEVER used any of those words.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never accused you of calling anyone that. I'm referring to Herostratus's example, which is pretty obvious considering I was talking to himregarding the unprotection, and referring to you in third person. ⇒SWATJester 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The way it is written, with no pronoun in the sentence, is extremely confusing, and I want to make it clear to anyone reading that I never called anyone that. also, have no idea what you are referring to regarding citations, or your accusation that I misrepresented anything. In addition, you also seem to have completey ignored that there was mass confusion regarding my unblock requests, because the first admin incorrectly thought it was an indirect block, whatever that is, so no one examined the issue or your gross violation of the blocking policy. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the slightest bit confusing at all, considering it was, before you moved it around, right underneath his comments where he said the exact same thing. Apparently the only person confused was you. ⇒SWATJester 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no pronoun in your sentence, and the previous referent is "she." As I said, I made it clear to anyone who *may* read this that I did not call anyone those things. Why again are you responding to Hero's request for a conversation with me, especially before I had a chance to respond to him? That is why my response to him comes after his message to me. I think I will remove this whole part of the thread, for the purposes of keeping the useful conversation clear.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing others of editing from a pro-paedophile perspective is far from polite, and it promotes the same misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages as a "paedophile haven" that self-identifying as pro-paedophile (a ban-worthy offense) would. Private mailing lists alone are appropriate for these kind of accusations, per precedent. I urge Petra to ignore your advice. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose advice, Hero's or Swat's. On a general note remember everyone that Petra is a new user and we should not bite new users but instead help them contribute contructively. I, like Herostratus, am very open to dialogue with you, petra. In terms of accusations I would also give the example of the difference between accusing another editor of editing from a pro cannabis point of view as being different from accusing another user of using cannabis, the first is clearly much more acceptable than the second (which should be a blockable offence and probably is). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Herostratus, of course.

Pro-paedophilia is not comparable to support of marijuana. The former brings the project into disrepute, the latter does not. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point though my point about marijuana is that one cannot accuse another editor of committing a criminal offence, and certainly the difference between editing with a PPA viewpoint and committing sex offences is also enormous. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Petra is a "new user" most of whose contributions are at AfD (including several AfD nominations) and some of the rest include disruptive wikilawyering on WP:AN and Jimbo's talk page. That is the kind of "new user" that is usually discussed at WP:SSP rather than the one WP:BITE was written for. Not that we shouldn't extend our policies of civility and assuming good faith to all fellow editors in good standing of course. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, funny how a new user would know enough of our blocking policy and dispute resolution procedures to allege a violation of the blocking policy. I think a checkuser is likely in order here. ⇒SWATJester 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser would, anyway, clear the air. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't someone who was blocked read the blocking policy? Especially as a link to it is included in the you are blocked message. I find that to be a very specious argument, also--your response to the accusation that you violated the blocking policy is not that you didn't, but that you are supposed to be able to get away with it because the blocked person is not supposed to be able to figure it out? -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've argued no such thing. I'm in no way in violation of blocking policy. Lets be direct: are you a sockpuppet? ⇒SWATJester 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Sock. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I only have one account. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also what you should have done in your unblock request is not criticise Swat for having made the block but promised not to have repeated what created the block in the first place. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Swat is completely in violation of the blocking policy--and not for the first time on a page where he is in dispute with someone on a pedophilia topic, it seems 2) I'm not even sure how "pedophile" is defined here, and my comments on my talkpage were phrased as genuine questions, and I never had any chance to reply on AN/i. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't learn do you? Even while several uninvolved administrators declined your unblocks by stating that I was not in a dispute with you and was not violating blocking policy; even as you were finally warned that if you continued you would be blocked, and that you violated that and were reported to AN/I, and blocked over it, you claim that you have done no wrong. ⇒SWATJester 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you may feel about Swat my advice is purely practical in terms of getting yourself unblocked and contributing in a way where you won't get banned. For me at least editing pedophile articles for what ic onsider to be neutrality is far more important than my personal feelings. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pursue whatever avenues are available for holding him accountable for violating the blocking policy. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think you'll have much joy in this case. I had rather hoped you would join us at PAW watch where we always need volunteers. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh

Petra you are way way over the top in calling Tony Sandel (!) a pedophile for Christ's sake. This is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin, but let's start with: Misplaced Pages protocols aside, where I come from we don't call people names that are likely to hurt their feelings. In addition, your reading of what Tony is saying is completely wrong. I'm confident that Tony would agree me that some pedophiles do offend of course but that some (maybe most) offenders are not pedophiles but rather people with no standards and no character.

I'm not sure where to go with you at this point but you are digging yourself in deeper. Speaking as someone who would like to help you be a productive editor, it's clear that

Could you please point to where in the above conversation I called Tony Sandel a pedophile?

I quoted him directly; his stated definition of pedophilia, which is "a love (or sexual attraction to) children." And I said I think this is a pro-pedophilia definition of pedophilia.

Here is a quote from you regarding Haiduc's definition of pederasty:

User:Haiduc provided me with the following cite, and he has many others I'm sure: "{Pederasty is] The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection" by Vern L. Bullough in . Herostratus 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think his definition of pederasty is pro-pederasty/activist. His definition of pederasty advocates that it only involves mutual relationships between adults and minors. This is not an accepted mainstream view of pederasty or pedophilia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Offenders

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "some {maybe most} offenders are not pedophiles but rather people with no standards and no character." The distinction between "fixated" and "situational" child sex offenders comes from David Finkelhor. Finkelhor has reported that "situational" offenders are more likely to be, for example, fathers who molest daughters but do not molest anyone else. He has also reported that "fixated" offenders (what I am assuming you mean by pedophile) have many more victims than the typical "situational" offender. While I woould agree with you that fathers who molest their daughters have no standards and no character, I do not believe fixated offenders with multiple victims have higher standards or better character. Perhaps they are worse because they damage more people. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously appear to have a knowledgeable background in this area, I hope you sit out your ban and then return to edit the articles we actually have on this topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Herostratus didn't claim that paedophilic child molesters "have higher standards or better character." He said that having no standards and no character alone (Finkelhor's "disinhibition") is a sufficient cause of child molestation, paedophile or not. A paedophile who has "standards and character" probably wouldn't molest children.

And, actually, the fixated-regressed terminology originates from the work of A. Nicholas Groth, and the concept behind that typology was established over a century prior. You may be thinking of Finkelhor's more complex "four factor model." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixated/regressed, the Groth distinction, is different from fixated/situational. (Not all "situational" offenders are surmised to be regressed.)

"A pedophile who has standards and character probably wouldn't molest children"--First sex offenders fantasize and rationalize, then they act. Cognitive distortions precede sex offenses. Promoting the idea that pedophiles have "standards and character" can feed the cognitive distortions of pedophiles. Note that this is largely an imaginary category--"the good pedophile"--and that real life people who have advocated for pedophilia on abstract grounds/because they claim it is only thoughts and feelings have been arrested for child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote

I find this quote from Haiduc very disturbing, and think it clearly advocates a pro-pedohilia POV:

"...a forty year old German can take his fifteen year old boyfriend to the beach, and a thirtyfive year old Italian can go camping and make love to his fourteen year old boyfriend, and a Montrealais too can date a fourteen year old boy, all in full legality and without any fear of the sex gestapo that haunts those trapped, mentally and physically, in more benighted places..."

sourec: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=42664967

-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page should be reprotected if you only wish to use it to expand on your harrassment and attempt to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

All I see here is soapboxing which is going nowhere, and even for an unblocked user, that would be an improper use of a talk page. Therefore, I've protected the page for three days. If any admin thinks that, looking at what has gone before, that unprotecting is remotely likely to be productive, I won't complain. But I doubt it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has my support. Though, my guess is that this is all in vain and that PetraSchelm has no intention of ever being a legitimate user. But we'll see how that plays out. ⇒SWATJester 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Good to see you back. There is a discussion on the CSA in songs talk about renaming it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

important note about the 3RR rule

Hi Petra

I concur with your recent edits at the CSA article. Since I noticed that someone is reverting your changes, I wanted to drop you a note to suggest you review the three-revert rule at this page: WP:3RR.

I do not believe you are close to three reverts today, so this is not in any way a "warning". But I thought it would be a good idea for you to read about that rule so you don't exceed it by accident.

Best wishes --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To Grutness

Grutness, claiming to a newbie that she is engaged in "to wholesale destruction of the articles in question" for removing unsourced material is to completely misunderstand our policies and then to convey that misunderstanding as fact to a new user whereas the reality is that we cannot keep unsourced material in any article, certainly not hidden away in the text. And if wrongly accusing an artist of writing about pedophilia is not a potential BLP vio I don't know what is. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concerns were (1) the removal of sourced material along with the unsourced - a definite mistake which did render the articles completely worthless, and (2) removal of unsourced material as an alternative to first trying to source the items, thereby risking losing valid information. These two problems are not a misunderstanding of policy, but rather queries of items that are the opposite of standard WP practice. I did not know that Petra was a newbie, though it makes sense, and for that I apologise to her but perhaps would suggest learning a little more about how things are normally done here before making such drastic changes to articles. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You completely missed the point that the three or four sourced items referred to the previous title of the list, so you are in error that they were sourced. Now that the title has been changed back, a few of them are sourced, yes. The overwhelming majority are not sourced, which I have been underscoring by going through the list by hand and inserting fact tags. Since there is a BLP issue, even if there are only a few mistakes, that's a few mistakes too many. (The Sweet Hereafter, for example--imagine of Atom Egoyan saw his film on this list. He intentionally cut out any and all references to child abuse when he made that novel into a film.) So a huge unsourced list shouldn't be left in this case. When I'm done fact-tagging, I'm going to move all the unsourced items to talk.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this, given that points are being missed right, let and centre, but: Did I ever say anything about the majority being sourced? No - as you point out, the vast majority have yet to be checked. But if even one was correctly sourced on an entire list, that one should have been left. As to your point about Atom Egoyan, I would expect him to complain, and that the item would be removed. However, if the item was commented out awaiting confirmation, he would not see it on the list, and if he saw it on a talk page or other subpage awaiting confirmation or denial, he would be able to have it removed without it being re-added to the list. Grutness...wha? 06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - you wrote: why are you continuing with this, except to be pointlessly argumentative?

I am doing this simply because as an administrator it is my task to deal with people who make disruptive edits to Misplaced Pages, such as you have been doing on three fronts. You removed well-sourced material from articles, which is wrong as has been previously explained (any page naming issues should have been sorted out first, since that was still clearly in a state of flux deletion clouded rather than expedited the issue - and sourced information is sourced information and does not change with an article's title); you deleted, rather than commenting out or transferring, material yet to be sourced but which had a good chance of being sourced one way or the other - something which has now been rectified; and you have been consistently moving signed comments from one talk page to another, which is also against WP policy. Please do not continually move someone else's signed words between talk pages "to continue discussions in one place", which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's GFDL policies. I am not "bickering on whether I am right or wrong" - I am simply trying to explain to you why your actions were incorrect, something you seem to be having some difficulty in understanding. Please - I have no wish to argue with you about the nature of the lists or their titles - I only became involved due to what appeared to be vandalism on your part but which is quite clearly merely poor judgement. Accept that and learn from it. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)