Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) Options

[EricBarbour]

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to edit for him, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned here.

Why is his account still active?

[everyking]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

[Apathetic]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

[Eva Destruction]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

[CharlotteWebb]

UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!

As he seems to acknowledge sharing his password, other speculation might be completely moot. Still I can't help but inquire about the significance of 1960 in this context.

A quick search reveals that certain formerly copyright-protected works published in Canada before 1960 are public domain they meet other specific criteria, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant.

Might censorship laws in his jurisdiction have some kind of grand-father clause (assuming the prevailing theory is true)?

[everyking]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

[Apathetic]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

[Viridae]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

[GlassBeadGame]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

[EricBarbour]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy?

One, two.
And even weirder.

Most of the discussion is in a "restricted area".....sorry.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Viridae]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).

[CharlotteWebb]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

[Viridae]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

[GlassBeadGame]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

[everyking]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

[GlassBeadGame]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

You have no perspective whatsoever. Editing an on-line "encyclopedia" is not a basic human right. If a person presents any risk to children at all just don't let them participate. This is especially true in the absence of any vetting or supervision. This is not some crappy little "deletion review" debate on Wikipedia and your "slippery slope" argument is so out of context as to mark you as hopeless case.

[Malleus]

Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

I think you overstate your case. Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages "child and adult collaboration". Indeed it's often impossible to tell who's the child and who's the adult.

Surely the only possible real world danger that a wikipedia encounter might involve would come from private email communications?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[EricBarbour]

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

Jeez, EK, you're really making me wonder about what is rattling around loose in your skull. Look at the guy's edit history--an obsessive interest in child-adult sex and child-adult sex related articles. Legal authorities have seen fit to ban him from all internet usage. (A ban he is trying to sneak past.)

Are you willing to follow him around on-wiki (along with a number of other unbanned pedophilia-interested types) and insure all his edits are properly neutral and meet general community standards? If not, then where do you get the idea that the general public would find this "acceptable"?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Tarc]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).

Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Malleus]

Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Presumably that was his court appointed proxy again. What a joke.

[A Horse With No Name]

Now at ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...nts#Herostratus

And, yes, Baseball Bugs is already there! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Mike R]

Now at ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...nts#Herostratus

And, yes, Baseball Bugs is already there! :ermm:

In reply to Bugs's comment, I believe admin Hermione1980 (T-C-L-K-R-D) once had to take an extended wikibreak due to being grounded.

[NotARepublican55]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity.

Fail.

Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes?

Depends.

Credit card fraud?

No

Terrorism?

Yes.

Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

Terrorism does, credit card fraud doesn't. You on the other hand are so hopelessly retarded that you warrant either a full lobotomy or euthanasia - whichever's cheaper. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55:

[The Joy]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

What on earth is wrong with you? You'd let known or strongly suspected pedophiles edit Wikipedia? Would you let Osama Bin Laden edit it knowing that he's an international terrorist? If the Foundation or the Wikipedia Community allowed that, the WMF's servers would be melted down and Jimbo ran out of the U.S. on a rail. Section 230 be damned!

For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.

[A Horse With No Name]

For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.

Yes, where is Arbcom on this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Malleus]

Yes, where is Arbcom on this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Hiding?

[EricBarbour]

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus gave a "PAW" barnstar to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the Pedophilia Article Watch, of course!
An organization he created!

And Herostratus received an award from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He made these edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by this one in June.
Around that time, this and this was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[NotARepublican55]

Update: Herostratus says it "was all just a joke". Should we take his word for it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published after 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus gave a "PAW" barnstar to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the Pedophilia Article Watch, of course!
An organization he created!

And Herostratus received an award from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He made these edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by this one in June.
Around that time, this and this was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

According to court records, Aucoin had a user profile on an Internet site frequented by pedophiles looking to exploit children.

Aucoin used the screen names "Fred Flint" and "Somf" to chat online with an undercover officer, who posed as a 14-year-old boy using a fictitious photograph, authorities have said.

After a warrant was issued and a computer forensic technician from the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council examined Aucoin's hard drives, police recovered 131 photographs of naked children and teenagers, some of them engaged in sexual acts.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55:

[Viridae]

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus gave a "PAW" barnstar to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the Pedophilia Article Watch, of course!
An organization he created!

And Herostratus received an award from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He made these edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by this one in June.
Around that time, this and this was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

He was editing right through the period he was supposed to be in jail.

[IN278S]

He was editing right through the period he was supposed to be in jail.

Yes, and Aucoin was ordered not to use or have access to computers during this time. I'm afraid the glove doesn't fit.

[jd turk]

I had something typed up about admins pulling stupid jokes, and how that kind of thing makes WP look even stupider for giving people without maturity power over others.

After the rest of the revelations, though, I suppose that's the least of the WP problems.

[EricBarbour]

If Hero is simply a joker/smartass, (and he appears to be one), then fine.
Let him explain why he spent so much time on the Pedophilia Article Watch.
I'd prefer to see HIS explanation, not Everyking or Baseball Bugs "rationalizing".

Okay, now here's some light reading for you. All from 2005/2006.
I pasted it below so he can't delete/oversight it.

Your CfD edit

I noticed your comment at the CfD entry for Category:Pederastic lovers and would like to point out that there might have been a misunderstanding. This is not an "automatic delete" candidate since that would refer, as you indicated to "basically a recreation of a deleted category under a different name." Instead, this is a case where a category was rejected largely on grounds of bad naming, rather than its intrinsic validity or lack of it. The "presiding" admin suggested that the best way to resolve the impasse was to correct the flaws and resubmit. Thus this is not merely a case of a new parading of a flawed category rejected for its substance, and there is substantial consensus among the judges that the new version resolves the main obstacle with the previous version. So, unless there other issues I am not aware of, I would like to ask you to look at the merits of the category (a compendium of historical personages who engaged in age-structured homosexual relationships) and decide on that basis. (I don't think that you really mean to imply that a naming error permanently vitiates an otherwise valid category.) Haiduc 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Humility is a worthy goal, obedience perhaps not. Thank you for your attention, and your frankness. If you wondered why I addressed you, and not some of the others who voted against keeping the category, I did so in large part because you are a Unitarian. Before I started practicing the buddhadharma I attended a Unitarian church for a while, and I found the people there kind and thoughtful. You have not disappointed me, though there may be one or two things we do not see eye to eye on. And since we both have non-secular interests as well, let me get right to the point. I do not see the discussion as being fundamentally about sex. The "carnal scenario" is the projection of modern materialism onto the sacred space of other cultures, it is the desecration of those cultures. The core discourse (as described by contemporary thinkers) was about actualizing personal and cultural ideals, and transmitting those ideals from one generation to the next. Was there decadence? Was there abuse, rape, violation? Without a doubt! Should that lead us to suppress study of this topic? I rather think we should expose as much of it as we can, so that we can understand it, understand the human nature that led to the zeniths and the nadirs, and understand ourselves in the process.

You suggest I keep quiet, and not conflate pederasty with "normal homosexuality." The only guideline here should be intellectual integrity. We should not conflate, and we should not be in denial. Let's look at the facts in the face, let's report them accurately, and let the chips fall where they may. And those facts are not what most people imagine, since there has been a long (2000 year) campaign of not only suppressing the practice but suppressing information about it as well. Researching this topic has been a real eye opener for me, a personal journey from rank homophobia to discovering a millenial (and ongoing) pattern of censorship equaled by few others. On the other hand, I caution you against taking my words out of context. One heavy-handed passage, in response to a false and pernicious charge, sums up neither my work here nor my philosophy. While it has been my goal to document the practice of pederasty in all its aspects — how could you tell? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) — it has equally been my goal to be utterly ruthless in what I write, and document the horrors as well as the ideals.


A couple more points, and I'm done.

1. My recruiting "like-minded" editors to vote. I beg to differ. I posted a notice in the gay and lesbian forum, but as you noted yourself, gays are often more uncomfortable with this topic than non-gays. And the few personal messages I sent out did not only go to people who agreed with me. At least one went to a person who voted against the first version, but whom I invited back because they seemed to have done so from a rational standpoint. So please retract your charge.
2. The "sex-with-minors" thing. It should be perfectly obvious that different communities have different standards about what relationships are and are not proper. Let us have the consideration to not presume we are in posession of wisdom that has passed them by, if we happen to live in a place where only 18 year olds have that right. It is ethnocentric at best, to say nothing about trashing humility and other values. I do not presume to understand why, for example, the [fill in the blank] allow their fifteen year olds freedom of sexual expression. I would like to think that it is because they recognize the value of love, and see sexual expression as a minor and incidental side to it. But here I am truly projecting. And if I may project a bit more, since you have introduced my putative preferences into this argument, let me say that I think that liberalizing adult sexual access to teens would be insanity, and worse than the present disaster of prohibiting it. Speaking as a parent, if you are after sex, stay away from my kids! At the same time, having adults love and mentor teens, acknowledging their beauty and erotic power without tresspassing the bounds of decency (would you countenance an occasional kiss?), would go a long way towards countering the hoi-polloization of western society. Maybe not exactly a mouse, but hardly an elephant, would you not agree?
3. Bring you up on charges of attack?! If something cannot be resolved by openness, kindness and rationality, it cannot be resolved at all. I am not at all upset by your very understandable accusations. I do think you have jumped to facile conclusions, and trivialized and misrepresented my position. But I cannot blame you because this is an explosive topic, and there is a certain body of dogma that we all have willy-nilly internalized. Nobody is whole here, and the only way to work with the situation is to air it out, the way I am doing, and the way you are doing. My relations with my neighbors? We have respect for each other, and part of that respect is not using each other as targets for eccentric political views. As for the Wikipedia kitchen, that is a different matter. It does get hot in here, but if comfort was what we wanted, I guess we would be watching tee-vee.
4. Finally, as far as your own vote, if you feel that you based it on a defensible argument and it is up to your standards of intellectual integrity, I have nothing more to say. Haiduc 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. I'm better and will be able to leave for my retreat, even if a couple of days late. Being here I noticed the fiasco with Rhollenton. I am very sorry if my work here caused his leaving, even if indirectly. If you reach him please let him know that I in no way condone illegal activities - if he got that impression it's because it is a very provocative topic that lends itself easily to misinterpretation. Haiduc 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a group for cleaning up the pedophile support article

That's a great idea. It's too large for wikipedia standards, because it has a sprawling, ill defined sense of what it's documenting. It needs less pedophile newsletter information and more news articles actually about this group, more like the Ex-Gay article. Lotusduck 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if we can come up with a draft that's balanced, we can put it up on a temp page for comment, and then perhaps have a vote to replace the one there now. There's all kinds of possibilities. --DanielCD 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best that I was not directly involved. I have had a change of heart about working on those projects, as the material and the people that seem to be active in it are most distasteful (the attitudes have been bringing out the worst in me (as I'm sure you've seen) and I've decided firmly to back off). All the debate is just pages and pages of styrofoam fluff, or so it seems. However, I have become somewhat familiar with the topic, and would certainly be available for technical/proofreading things, and would be interested in seeing the draft (as I trust you guys not to be pushing agendas or assuming moral superiority to the point of nausea). I'll probably still do some editing from time to time on the adjacent articles that are directly related to psychology (paraphilia, pedophilia, sexual development, etc.), but not with the PA or NAMBLA or such stuff.

Yes, I'd like to help, but not directly. I'd like to proofread and comment, and my services as an administrator would be available to you on the asking (and, of course, considering the intricacies of the particular circumstance). Or I could do nothing at all, if you'd prefer.

I might take a full break (wikivacation) for a few days sometime over the next month to try to regain some perspective, but I don't know when yet. Just let me know when you get something cooking. I applaud you're efforts in this regard. --DanielCD 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this article: Ego, superego, and id is up for the improvement drive and needs one more vote to make it. See the box at the top of the article for details. --DanielCD 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is quite a mess really. It's constantly getting vandalised, reverted, locked, unlocked, AFD/VFD'ed, Disputed Neutrality and factuality'ed etc... Anyhow, it's about time someone tried to sort all that out. Count me in =) = Silent War = 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Child luv

Hey, how are things going with this (or not going with this) project. Looks to have gotten off to a flat start. LMK if you are still thinking about it; I'm curious. --DanielCD 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, looking good. I'll give it a good look at and give comments as I can. --DanielCD 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the least, I think the forum should definitely be used for evaluating references used at the articles, especially the PA article. That's an area that really needs some work, and I can chip in a few refs to review as well. --DanielCD 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to access this site: [[1]. Lotusduck couldn't access it, and I couldn't access it in Internet Explorer, but it gives a somewhat different take on it and might be of interest. --DanielCD 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Project

Please see my comments at User talk:Herostratus/Pedophilia. I may suggest things you've already thought of, but then again, that's all the more reason to think it's important. I really am liking the idea of this project and respect the time and effort you are doing in this regard.

I would like to know if there any feelings you have about me being involved. One of your messages seemed to imply that it'd be better for me not to, which is ok. I can be a smartass when I feel people are being overly-rightious (to put it mildly), but apart from the occasional sour comment, my judgement is usually sound. I am now actively considering what role I should take, and welcome any comments from you regardless of their content. I can take constructive criticism, so don't worry about socking it to me, especially if I say you can! (Remember before, when you said you needed that thump on the head? We all need that sometimes!)

Anyway, I'm feeling rather confident that this plan/project of yours is not just good, but may even be necessary (and long overdue!).

I'd like to offer pointers about things to keep in mind, and one is the tendancy I'm seeing to sway things one way or the other because of outside publicity and "newcomer" editors that are here "to set things straight". Things like Childlove should focus on their ("Childlovers"') views, and the detractors' views should come after (though there will be times to qualify statements in both areas). And I am also thinking the article might be better with the name Childlove advocacy (but I'm not married to that idea, mind you.) Just like at Pedophilia, the medical views come first and formost, then other views. It's with those areas, solidly defined in a well-written intro, that the core of a great article can come into being, and lots of discussion time can be cut down if everyone is on the same page.

Beware of public opinion. It is a power to note, but shouldn't dictate a POV. Some people think it should default there, but, as policy says, NPOV is not negotiable. --DanielCD 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing about the project is it can potentially get us all on the same page, so we are not arguing apples and oranges. Right now I'm starting to get in the mental mode of focusing on a certain area; since I left off the 1911EB project two or so months ago (right before the Beckjord cabal), I have been kind of floating about. I need to sit down and decide where I want to focus. I want to work on definitions and citations, making Wikipedia less wish-washy, and that's why I like this.

If nothing else, we can use this as a discussion area to reach a consensus among ourselves, and as a group present things. I do not mean in the sense of a pressure group or "gang", but in the sense that we can refer people to our reasoning, which would be in a central location.

You may not be certain what to do with it as yet, but hey, did Einstein know what to do with E=mc2 when he came up with it in 1905? It led to the atomic bomb 40 years later (not that that will be the result here mind you!) --DanielCD 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred!
For having the balls to clean the McCarthyite Moralist POV-Pushing BS out of the Wikipedia pedophilia articles, you are hereby awarded the Edward R. Murrow barnstar, which is awarded to those who struggle against fraudulent propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Dragon695 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck and Godspeed my friend, I don't envy your task :-/ --Dragon695 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ped. Project

Looks like this is getting off to a lukewarm start. No responses to the comments I've made on the talk page. You seeing any action? Perhaps we sould advertise it more. There is stuff going on at the Pedophilia article itself that really needs a forum for debate, and this might be what we need to straighten the issues out and get everyone on the same page. I'm ISO ideas though, and you seem to be fruitful in that area. We seriously need to debate the nature of the Pedophilia article itself, so it will have a solid definition people can rest on and take the pro/con debate elsewhere. I'm concerned another article is going to pop up on "anti-pedophilia" and confuse/complicate the matter.

I'd also like to have a central place to find the debates, as I am all-too-often going into things without having read everything. But who could read all the material in these rambling debates? --DanielCD 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey wake up. I miss your sense of humor, and you're never around. My interest in the project hasn't waned. --DanielCD 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been saying that there was something in the air, an issue that will soon rise to a point that it had to be addressed. Well, perhaps this is it: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. --DanielCD 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you to some comments I made FloNight. I really wish these guys exercised more tact, but I figured the bounds would be tested. It's human; humans test boundaries. --DanielCD 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

Are you always a hilarious smartarse or was this an abberation? The timing was unfortunate, and it's a hot button subject. I'll be suprised if it doesn't get deleted, however hope springs eternal in the human heart. - brenneman(t)© 10:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Based upon a note by a third party regarding the "gravity" of the situation, I'll be less crytic: I thought that your comments were accurate and damning, but had the added charm of being humourous. I'd have thought from the tone of the above message and the fact that I've recommended "keep" that would have been obvious, but have been known to be unintentionally occult before.
brenneman(t)© 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project

My comments at the delete are sharp, but are not at any way aimed at you or the project. I wanted to improve the articles, the medical aspects and such. Without my coordination at the "P" article, I imagine it will soon return to a quagmire. We should have debated and voted Herostratus. Then we may have seen the possiblity of integrating this as a subsection of another project and/or gotten much more input from outside about how to proceed.

I hope this doesn't cost me your friendship. And if anyone give you trouble about your intentions, by all means let me know. Things will be set straight in that regard, and I will defend you until the day I leave this asylum for good, which will be soon if you are attacked in this manner. Let Wikipedia chase off the people with expertise in critical areas. If they do, they will deserve it dearly, and quality will suffer in that regard. Feel free to ask anything of me my friend. --DanielCD 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm deleting that petty troll-trash above my comment here. Feel free to revert that, or restore it to an archive and scold me accordingly. --DanielCD 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, there is no ill-will at all, and I look forward to working with you in other arenas.

And don't think you did anything wrong. A mistake is a mistake; and you acted in good faith. I was starting to drift to other interests myself. --DanielCD 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedo project

You know what would go a long way to making people believe the project is not POINT? Remove the userbox, entirely. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An apology

I want to apolgize to you for not having discussed this with you first. I have to agree that you are right that I did not assume good faith. It was just a huge amount of bad timing. The fact that there was a userbox pointing to the project on top of the previous war over the other pedo userbox was what triggered my reaction. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. In regards to the userbox you made: I actually didn't even notice that until now. Man, I've had my head in the sand. I was thinking the criticism was aimed at the project, and didn't realize there was another userbox, which kinda crosses issues. I just got caught up in a wirlwind... I don't know what to say but... Wow. Anyway...

"Guess what...? I got a fever... and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

I've been irritating half the 'pedia with this silly link, so I miteaswell givit ta ya' as well... Stay cool man! And remember... it's you lighthearted types that keep this place from exploding, so stay handy...! --DanielCD 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, you're not the only one who said things they wish could be taken back. Just remember, some got burned harder than us. --DanielCD 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what all these people are apologizing to you for or what this whole group hug thing is but It's so emotionally overwhelming, I can't stand it! I'm sorry too! I love eeeewwweeee! (said like Mel Gibson in Braveheart :-) Lawyer2b 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Now I'm gonna cry... Herostratus

SO IT WAS YOU! YOU BASTARD! I've had bloody Don't Fear the Reaper running round my brain for the last week and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! I'm coming round with a wikibat right now... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm just making a fresh start. My pages will repopulate as I reassimilate into a new mode of editing. My biggest frustration in all this was missing all the action, and being in the dark about what was happening, yet still being caught up in the wake. I was only finding out about things like a day after they happened, and ...wow. I learned a bunch though; I think we all did. And I actually think the striked message I left was rather well-crafted and harmless considering what I wanted to say.

I just hope someone out there is aware of the potential problems (to put it mildly) that could potentially arise. It's a pain actually caring about something. But the other guy was peobably right; it's not my job to defend Wikipedia, at least not in that depth/way. Also: I'm going to archive all related comments and just leave new stuff, so don't be offended if one of your comments disappears off my talk page. See ya round. --DanielCD 14:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Group hug

I tried to tone down my response over at MfD, but if I still caught you wrong, I apologize. Good to see that a bit more perspective is coming back over time .... who knows, maybe we'll have an encyclop(a)edia here soon! Cheers. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, you should have seen the first draft of what I wrote...anyway, I've voted to keep the project (albeit with an expanded focus), hopefully there will be enough eyes that come back to it to keep it from being knee-jerk deleted. You really did catch the raw end of the stick on this one. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da joyks

Let the jerks be Hero. We know the truth. I like the abbreviated "Hero". It kinda fits. --DanielCD 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project sexuality: subproject Age-related issues

What is in a name? Would not a rose smell as sweet were it called by another name? Human s are irrational and put great stock in the names of things. Why give a project a name that provokes irrational responses? If you want to help, try again; only this time take into consideration human nature. The project is ABOUT human nature? Right? So USE your knowledge of human nature when you make descisions and don't just write about it. That's my two cents. WAS 4.250 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Screw two cents, I might just buy that for a whole quarter. ! :-)) --DanielCD 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

That is all. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vote

I voted at the article deletion review. I hope you don't feel like I abandoned you at a critical moment, but looking back, it seems like I did. It's so good to have the storm on the backside-horizon though. I feel a lot better this week about everything. I learned a ton. LMK how you are feeling lately. --DanielCD 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No rough feelings anywhere here. I just need to stop checking in on the deletion review, because I keep putting my foot in my mouth for no real reason. I've been doing light editing and stuff; feeling a lot better, but still not anxious to go back into that debate for a long while... Problem is, I am doing some research that touches on it, so a lot of good insight may be lost. But so what, it's only an encyclopedia. No life or death matters here. --DanielCD 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. You deserve one more than anyone though, and we'll see about fixing that. --DanielCD 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Per your em note: yes, I've noticed exactly what you are saying, and likewise didn't want to say anything openly. There's actually a broader problem with advocacy on a variety of issues. I'm uncertain as what to do though (or if I should bother, the "trustees" seem quite unconcerned, so why should I worry if they get bit in the ass on something?). Right now I'm still sorting out my relationship to this whole thing, as far as what my goals are. But I'm tired of jumping before thinking, so this time, I opt to wait, be patient, and think.

And yea, I think that comment I made was a speed-bump that stopped the momentum at the right time, halted the progression enough to allow some ppl to see where it was heading. Just look at the comment above mine. It came in after mine, but... ya never know. Who can really say after the fact? --DanielCD 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophile activism

THanks for your comment on my talkpage the other day. I'm still getting the hang of this, so you may not have seen my response, since it was on my own page, lol. Anyway, feel free to check out this page (and my comment about it on the P.A. talk page). It probably just shows I have too much time on my hands! Have a good one. Joey Q. McCartney 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pedophilia

* I am not currently an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, though the articles I tend to participate on have a good deal overlap with that project. It was my understanding that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality was fairly dead.
* I'm not sure I want to join any more wikiprojects at the moment, but I'll consider it, once y'all get started.
* I have no objection to you joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and adding any subprojects you want, though I'm sure there will be someone who does (mind you, maybe that fact shouldn't stop you).

Good luck with your project! -Seth Mahoney 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

Feel free to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as you will. I haven't touched the page in many months. Most interest has shifted to Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. -- Beland 23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject subproject

Hi Sam Spade. I'm contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I recently created a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:

* Are you still an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?
* Hi! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
* Be aware that we have had a difficult birth and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
* In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
* We are considering renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?Herostratus 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea I was in the sexology project. I think I'd better remove my name... Paraphilia will open up alot of moral questions on what to include.. at its broadest it would include homosexuality, S&M, and all sorts of other kinks. At its most specific it wouldn't include most pedophilia. Sam Spade 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping Sam would get on the wagon! Ignore the EM I guess. --DanielCD 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

...............Survived......... --DanielCD 02:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Purely preventative. Be very cautious with it, and please please take the notices I left to heart, at least for the time being. Just leave that aspect be for now. I'll reply more tomorrow as I'm too tired tonight. --DanielCD 05:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] childlove/pedophilia

saw your post on this topic, but i don't have time today to give it the thought it deserves. We'll just need to be sure eventually that it's all verifiable. take care, Joey Q. McCartney 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: We need to talk

I reverted your edit to Child sexual abuse. Obviously the essay is very moving, but I think we would need a lot more background before we can add that link to any article. Questions I have:

1. You have two edits since March 1. But the March 1 edit was from a user in the United States, so that is not you (I presume). So as far I can see you have two edits.

No idea about that.

1. But you mentioned people at Wikipedia.org helping you with the essay. What is that about? There is no record of these conversations in the talk page here. Do you have a named account, or something?

There wasn't much, and I wrote it a while ago, for some reason it was removed. A few people who said they found me from wikipedia gave me some good feedback on the article by email, a while ago.

1. It would be highly unusual to link to what is basically an anonymous post. We would need verification that the events described are true, for instance. A typical minimum would be if the essay was posted on a web site which gaver your name.

I am getting a website back up, I forgot to log into my wikipedia account, Kintaro.

Sorry. If you would be kind enough to message me back (click on my username at the end of this message), that would be great. Herostratus 09:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. --Kintaro 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My first thought is that we can't be having people write outside essays just to refer to them in the articles. This is somethng to consider. But keep in mind I still need to read the paper. --DanielCD 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Several things come to mind as to why I think it's genuine. I may be wrong, but whatever. Perps use the curiosity of children against them, especially with boys, who have a natural curiosity about the male organ and what it means to their identity. This is used by perps to get "in the door" so to speak, then the abuse starts from there. Also the attention seeking is a cry from a child for help with processing information that is beyond their age-capacity to process. It is a desire to be understood, for people to pay attention and look close, and to help process the information and affect the necessary transformation so the real work of growth, which is being short-changed, can continue. I see all this there. As well as the desire for suicide, which is also a desire for transformation. A touching story I could say lots more about.

But I don't think it's linkable in the article. I'm not going to remove it, but it would be better linked from his userpage. There may be other options, we'll see. --DanielCD 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I'm only dropping in occasionally lately, but saw your note. Thanks for the encouragement. Joey Q. McCartney 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bold suggestion

Hello Herostratus, : ) I made a bold suggestion on Child sexuality article. Of course, you don't have to agree with this brilliant ideas! I do think it is worth discussion. FloNight talk 13:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lolicon et al images

My biggest problem was a misunderstanding. When you said I will delete... I had assumed you were sysop or higher flagged and were going to delete them out of process. Since we do not suffer from copyright paranoia I believe this to be rash and uncalled for. Even if something was a copyright violation you should at least let other people that understand our policies comment on it (and people on the articles talk page are not likely candidates of people that understand the policies), especially with images as we cannot restore them. I have no problem with them being up on IFD or WP:Copyright problems. kotepho 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking

Why did you blank these pages? User talk:XavierVE, User:XavierVE. Just because a user is "inactive" doesn't seem like a good reason to blank their pages. -Will Beback 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't heard about his threat. -Will Beback 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Parox wasn't a troublemaker and didn't ask for any of that. I found him to be very even-tempered. He was actually a decent editor until the little "box" event. After that he kinda went ape-shit. But there are plenty of others out there who are worse. It's kind of a "has been" kinda deal. --DanielCD 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any users still self-identifying as peds out there? --DanielCD 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, and as far as I'm concerned they're entitled to if they want to. At any rate, no fellow editor should be abused, if someone wants to bring an editor up on any charges, fine, but otherwise... Herostratus 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --DanielCD 13:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he blanked the page himself. He's only here to monitor the PeeJ article. I don't think he cares much for anything else at Wikipedia. I think you were right to bring up the issue. --DanielCD 20:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He blanked them because I asked him to. Told him to, actually. Herostratus 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to the board

I sen this email to the board last night, about 11:30 pm UK time, although I have as yet had no response, but I thought I'd copy you in.

To the board,

I'm currently an admin on the english wikipedia and there's a thorny issue currently being debated which possibly you might like to look at.

Images which are computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have been deemed illegal by the U.S. PROTECT Act of 2003, although that act may run counter to the Constitution, as previously ruled by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Online Protection Act.

However, although Wikipedia is not censored, are such images ones with which Wikipedia should be associated?

This is a somewhat divisive issue, which takes into account various side questions which detract from the main issue, and some of us feel this might be best decided by the board of the foundation, since a strong consensus on the issue may be hard to achieve.

I hope you will consider this issue and I look forward to your response.

In closing, I would like to say thank you for your time, and also thank you for affording me such a wonderful opportunity to both learn and educate through editing Wikipedia. It is a marvellous thing you have created, and I feel privileged to play even a minor role.

Hiding
[edit] dropping the other shoe

Would you mind finishing up the editing of the Pederasty in the modern world article so that we can retire the tag you placed there? Thanks, Haiduc 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you

Thank you for taking it to the WikiEn list for discussion. I fully support Sam's action. I hope this will give us some momentum for more changes that will protect the overall interest of the site. I'm going to try to gather community consensus about external links with images of children being sexually exploited and images of children engaged in sex acts. The images are illegal in some English speaking places the same as photos of child porn. And they are disgusting because they promote the sexual exploitation of children. I don't think Wikipedia should associate it's self with them. We should not give any impression that we cater to pedophiles. I removed the external link off of the Lolicon article. Of course, it was reapplied. : } I use a 1RR so the link will stay on until someone else removes it. I've stated my reasons on the talk page. Of course the usual arguments for including them appeared rebutting me. I don't know what your position on this has been in the past. I hope you will support this change now while we have some momentum for protecting the interest of WP. Again thanks for taking action. FloNight talk 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renchan link

I've removed the hyperlinking function of the renchan message board link; this was a suggestion from the mailing list, and could be a solution. The relevant post on the mailing list is http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ril/043256.html Hiding talk 08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding. This is very helpful. : ) Herostratus, did you see that I started the thread about external links on the email list? The email list is a good resource for us it seems. Our biggest problem has been the lack of neutral editors seeing these articles on a regular basis. For now, we have raised their profile and more active, experienced editors will look at them. Hopefully, a few of them will take an interest and become regular editors.

Herostratus, can I send you an email at the same address you use to post to the email list. Your wikipedia email is not activated and I need to talk to you about something best discussed off the site. FloNight talk 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the email list about deleting LS Studio for lack of reliable sources. I posted the same comments to to the LS Studio talk and PAW talk. Interesting discussion and some extra comments on talk from it. (Except the one person that attacked me, of course. I preety good at ignoring that kind of stuff.) I think it is a very good idea to introduce PAW on the email list. I'm also thinking about posting a personal message (not spam) on the talk page of everyone that debated the image deletion issue or commented or voted in User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006. What do you think? Most of the people commenting were very experienced. The type we need to weigh in and give opinions about what is best for the overall interest of the 'pedia. Let me know what you think. --FloNight talk 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lolicon

Herostratus:

Please do not leave threatening messages on my talk page. I don't care about your lengthy explanation, because (1) users should be able to click on links if they want to and (2) you are not an administrator.

Thanks,

Primetime 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of playing devil's advocate. Do an RFC or whatever, I'll endorse it. Med cabal might be a better choice though. Kotepho 23:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Content issues are a-ok, but yeah there is a decent backlog. RFC isn't exactly a great option either though. It isn't likely to really solve the contention, just show that one side has consensus.. maybe. Really though, at this point anything is better than edit warring. Kotepho 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warning: Blatant vandalism
Stop hand.png

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Lolicon, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. The Psycho 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, I just saw the vandalism message. I'm not going to revert it. I'll leave that to you. It is obvious from your discussion on the article talk page that your edit wasn't vandalism. Taking some abuse from other editors is necessary to make the article encyclopedic! Ask Sam. He had an Administrator behavior Rfc started on him. : ) --FloNight talk 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo, thanks. Nah, I won't revert it, I usually just leave my talk page alone. Hell, George Reeves has left me a whole archive full of stuff worse than that... Herostratus 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Lolicon: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --Primetime 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow they're coming in fast tonite. I wish he'd vandalize my userpage instead, I'm trying to run up my count on that. Herostratus 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You inferred that I'm a pedophile in the edit summary of the article "lolicon". I personally think that was a personal attack. (You have no idea who I am, anyway.) I really just have a pet peeve against censorship. Attacking sites with pedophilia on them is one thing. Attacking articles in encyclopedias that discuss pedophilia is another.--Primetime 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you can talk. I think you mean "implied" not "inferred". Yes I know about the thing about censorship. Everybody has a thing about censorship. I know what you mean. This censorship thing, it's just awful. I don't know what to do about it, myself. There's just too damn much censorship everywhere. We've got to do something about the censorship. Did I mention censorship? Because we can't have it.

At least Psycho gave me one with the white hand. Next time can I get one with a white hand? How about a white X, I don't have one of those yet tonite. Herostratus 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't like the fact that you are summarizing my arguments for me. I think that your desperate attempts to influence this discussion using all possible means (e.g., breaking up the discussion into sections) is in very bad taste. I understand that you're literally on a mission from God to remove the link, but I'm not here because God told me to. I'm here to help other people decide what to believe.--Primetime 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not sure

Hi not sure of how to contact you correctly and join PAW etc. Read your note on my page. I've lots to learn... Tony Sandel (UK time)...
[edit] Re Child sexuality

Nice work on child sexuality. JayW 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia, Kevin Brown [2]

Not all the refs are by Brown, the second is from [3] which may or may not be trustworthy. The last paragraph is out of place though. Skinnyweed 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We can infer from Kevin's case that paedosexuals are not treated equally under the law; they are not protected by anti-discrimination laws, nor are they sheltered as a "sexual orientation." It's revealing, though not very definite. We'll have a better paragraph when the Supreme Court decides whether paedosexuals deserve human rights. JayW 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child Sexual Abuse

I reverted your revert on the child sexual abuse effects section, since you gave reason for doing so. I mentioned that I planned on adding that information on the talk page to represent the other point of view a few days earlier, with no objections. So I don't think that it is appropriate to simply revert the edit. Perhaps we should discuss this on that article's talk page. Crazywolf 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rind et al

The Rind et al study is sound in its methodology. None of the critics have been able to show they aren't. However, they do an excellent job of convinving the public of whatever the public already wants to believe. Overall, the study is not the big deal people make it out to be. The problem is that there's so many people trying to use it to certain ends, regardless of whether the study actually supports those ends or not, that it has led to massive confusion like what you are experiencing. And most are happy with the confusion, because then they can just say "to hell with it" and believe what's easiest or most entertaining to believe.

As to the study, I need to go and refresh my memory a bit before I say too much. I do believe that they concluded there were instances of CSA not actually doing harm, but that may be an oversimplification. All they really did was say we need a term like Adult-Child Sex to cover such cases. It was a academic suggestion regarding terminology to describe these certain cases for specialists to refer to the cases. They absolutely made it clear that they were in no way whatsoever condoning anything. People think it should all be CSA and there should be no ACS; It's an argument about terminology. But the FACT is that there are cases where children have had sexual experience with adults and were not traumatized by it (it depends on umpteen thousand different things, such as resiliance, support of family, amount and depth of abuse, who did the abuse, feelings of betrayal, etc.) I don't know all the details, but this fact angers people and they don't want it spoken of. The actions of congress, the APA in caving to political pressure, and others were absolutely inexcusable.

No, it doesn't say that ACS is anything other than abuse. It just says there are cases where the abuse occurred and there didn't seem to be any long-term incapacitating effects. Some kids could shrug it off, but who can say how any person is going to react to a potantial trauma? Who knows who is going to lose it in a combat situation? In a hurricane, earthquake or other traumatic event? I believe it was mainly about this small suggestion regarding terminology that was meant for the academic community.

I can look it up again if you need more and I'll re-read your question to make sure I covered what I think you are asking. --DanielCD 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CSA discussion

Hi, I posted this on the CSA discussion page. But I thought you might miss it, as it is now far up on the page. Here was my reply to one of your points...

"If you actually read the Age of consent reform page, you'll see that there are many differing groups supporting abolition or reduction. Far from being right wing, most are ultra-lefties if anything. Strident right-wingers typically favour ALL sex (except that within marriage) being taboo or even illegal. Where do you get the odd idea that abolition is a right-wing idea??? It's is the opposite. You could hardly call liberal lefties like Judith Levine and John Holt right-wingers..."

-Neural 12:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll pardon my insinuating myself into this discussion, but I too think the abolition of age-of-consent laws to be a cause more frequently championed by those of the left than those of the right; in my case, my advocacy for abolition is driven by my anarcholibertarianism, and the underlying impulses are surely of the classical liberal, and probably contemporary liberal, nature. This is, though, one issue that seems to divide those on the far left, especially self-styled progressives; it seems to pit, as, for example, the question of whether prostitution should be legalized or whether the dissemination of pornography should be proscribed, those who advocate for the government's staying out fully of one's personal life and inculcating no morality and the government's acting toward some broader good (an extension, essentially, of the negative liberty-positive liberty debate that proceeds apace amongst liberal thinkers). I don't imagine, though, that this is an issue my Democratic Party will take up anytime soon, and it is also very, very low on my list of government intrusions about which to be concerned (one does gather that those who think this to be an issue on which we ought to focus act self-interestedly, which is fine; I'm simply not interested in having sex with twelve-year-olds, and so I choose to focus on other issues). Joe 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] didn't realize that NPOV tag was new

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that was a new NPOV tag from you at the CP article - I didn't check the history carefully and thought it had just been sitting there. I still think (assuming the facts are accurate, which - who knows?) that the section is one of the few neutral-toned parts of the entire article.

Thanks for taking on that "definition" section. Qwasty is extremely persistent in his POV-pushing, and I've got a bit worn out. DanB†DanD 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey

I stumbled across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pedophilia, and DMAN I didn't realise how up-tight people were about it! You did well, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

By the way, I didn't even know you were an administrator—good thing I checked before I was going to nominate you! — $PЯINGrαgђ Always loyal! 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia activism

Just wanted to let you know I've tried to improve Pedophilia activism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. I see this page as a test of Wikipedia's ability to objectively, carefully represent mainstream views in the face of a very engaged minority. 216.104.211.5 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your edits to Paedophilia...
Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tony X Liu 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[Viridae]

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

[CharlotteWebb]

For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.

I had been trying to figure out if there could be a less sordid explanation compatible with the circumstances he described, however he seems to have forfeited that possibility by claiming the whole thing was a twisted joke on his part.

I suspect he may be reading this thread, as this comment appears to be in light of my previous analysis:

For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published after 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oddly on his user-page he actually had written "periodicals published before 1960", so I don't know what to make of it.

Personally I'd change the ban reason to "trolling" and let historians decide whether it refers to past or present.

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

[MZMcBride]

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

You're suggesting some sort of consistency that has never existed.

[Malleus]

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

You're suggesting some sort of consistency that has never existed.

Oh I think it's consistent enough all right. Administrator: can do no wrong, so let's wait to hear his side of the story and believe it no matter how incredible it may appear. Regular editor: can't be trusted, so who gives a fuck what their excuse is.

[One]

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to edit for him, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned here.

Why is his account still active?

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim, especially when accompanied with statements like "Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960."

Here, Herostratus claims to have edited the paper version of Wikipedia in 1989. Master sleuth EricBarbour might be able to tell us about how Herostratus was lying when he made that claim.

This post has been edited by One:

[CharlotteWebb]

Oh I think it's consistent enough all right. Administrator: can do no wrong, so let's wait to hear his side of the story and believe it no matter how incredible it may appear. Regular editor: can't be trusted, so who gives a fuck what their excuse is.

Here you're implying that arbcom is consistently inconsistent, which still gives give them too much credit.

See also: • Rumsfeld, D. (2002) Known Unknowns. Paladin Press. p. 6.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

Around that time, this and this was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

As usual, your irresponsibility is matched only by your incompetence.

If Hero is simply a joker/smartass, (and he appears to be one), then fine.
Let him explain why he spent so much time on the Pedophilia Article Watch.
I'd prefer to see HIS explanation, not Everyking or Baseball Bugs "rationalizing".

Because he wants to remove pro-pedo advocacy?

Clue: adding the "sexual violence" template to [[pedophilia]], and edit-warring with pro-pedo accounts to remove "consensual" from the definition of statutory rape are not typical pro-pedo POVs.

This post has been edited by One:

[Apathetic]

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim...

why, just imagine the edit conflicts!