User talk:TlatoSMD~enwiki

User contributions

I can't seem to access your contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TlatoSMD. Skinnyweed 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have not much of an idea idea how this technical level of Wikipedia works either. Another user has PMed me a few hours ago, asking me to create an account, I just did, and now I find that you've posted a msg in my already existing User talk 9 days ago even though WP has just claimed that I have no such thing as an account. I'm really lost. I'm glad I know how to sign my posts. --TlatoSMD 11:24, 25 June 2006 (CEST)

Your old account was User_talk:Tlatosmd. JayW 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(There was a welcome template here but on January 25th 2008, it started messing up the page layout as suddenly the whole content of this talkpage was inside this welcome box.)

Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

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

Thank you for inviting me VP but I'm afraid I'm not a great essayist on policies or meta-policies, even though I sure enjoy reading humorous take-ups on them from time to time.

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

That's why I'm currently looking for a few people here sympathetic to our just-deleted article on the English Wikipedia that have at least a basic grasp of German so I could ask about their opinion whether they think it'd be a good idea for me to translate it and put up here. So far, I've found SSB, Bikasuishin, Coren, Tango, Stevenfruitsmaak, Martijn Hoekstra, John, and William P. Coleman to have a basic understanding of the language. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This line from our favorite ..., "And I give you fair warning that I will mfd your ACS sub-page if the DRV decides to endorse the deletion", shows exactly why we need one of the essays, the one on Crusades. Remember the line awhile back about the long-term "strategy" to get the ACS article deleted? Hey, we're only quoting. And the incivility is dripping... I don't see where you or anyone else called him a criminal, and I find it offensive for a person to say as much when it plainly didn't happen. Maybe calling a him "Nazi scum" would be more civil? (Wait, that's been tried...) Anytime you wish to drop in and offer any help to the essays, you're more than welcome. Keep up the good work! VigilancePrime (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Squeak on original research aka articles about existing works (separated from above)

You cant use wikipedia to translate your own original research into German, you can do that elsewhere but wikipedia is about constructing an encyclopedia in English. And I give you fair warning that I will mfd your ACS sub-page if the DRV decides to endorse the deletion. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research? What original research is there in the articles Civilization and Its Discontents or in Dialectic of Enlightenment? They're both essays on existing works, and that's we're talking about here. Also, I'd ask you to abstain from vandalizing other people's userspace, especially since you're not an admin. What you're indicating is the equivalent of breaking into people's houses and destroy all their tapes of a TV show that has been canceled due to low ratings. Notability issues when suggesting to move it to one of the main projects can be dealt with later, that's what userspaces are there for. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?!? What?!? Sticking an mfd with good reasons on a sub-page is never vandalism. There are plenty of places off site where you can write essays butt his is the place for constructing the English language wikipedia and not for anything else. I'll certainly be keeping a good eye. You subtle attack calling me a criminal is unhelpful but typical of your general approach. Anyway the DRV is not yet concluded and any mfd would be allowing the community to decide, which is all I am suggesting. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

May I quote to you from WP:MFD? "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion." MfDs are about handling personal attack material and stuff not related to Wikipedia. And regarding the vandalizing, uncalled-for removal of well-sourced academic material which qualifies many people's usual encounters with you, I wouldn't be surprised you'd think you won't need anything like an MfD. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well exactly, that is why I am waiting on the DRV result, as if it endorses the deletion that page will not any longer have relevance to building our encyclopedia here, ie my justification will be exactly the clause you mention, ie the non-relevance bit, its clearly not an attack page. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And third, tell me why articles about existing works, such as Civilization and Its Discontents, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Aguirre, Wrath of God, or Hitler: A Film from Germany are not about about "constructing the English language wikipedia". --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with you creating sub-pages that relate to constructing the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth, consensus can change, which is why it's a bad idea to try and get a draft deleted even if the original article has been deleted against severe disagreement from several dozen editors due to steamrollering. I also regard it a pretty silly move to actually care about other people's userspace if it's not personal attacks or un-related to Wikipedia because userspaces are the least-accessed part of Wikipedia. And thanks, from everything I've seen I'm not asking to collaborate with you, Squeak, specifically on shaping my own personal userspace. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that communication between the two of you (particularly when it is not related to a specific article) is unconstructive and should be avoided, particularly warnings about something discussed between other users where you may not have all of the relevant information. ^Avruchtalk 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd be great if Squeak would stop stalking me in whatever I do. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalking is yet another one of your personal attacks, how many is it so far? I just suggets you behave, that is all, and stalking allegations like the criminal allegations and VP's "Nazi Scum" assertion are completely out of order and such bad behaviour will not be tolerated nay longer, let this also be fair warning, you are not allowed to use wikipedia to attack other users. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to dedicate a large part of your day just patroling every little move I make, that's what I mean by stalking, it's pretty annoying especially since you're not an admin. You give your uncalled-for hostile opinion on whatever I do, whenever you feel like it, here on my talkpage. You report me to various authorities, admins, and noticeboards for every little thing you don't like. Don't you think there might be other people interested in playing big brother so you won't have to? Stop playing a one-man army that's stubbornly trying to push me out of Wikipedia either by scaring me away or by trying to get me blocked and banned! None of your continued attempts have been successful so far. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

WARNING: Feeding the Trolls to Commence:

Let me first state that the "assertion" you reference above is not an assertion. It is a reference. In fact, it is not even something that anyone is accusing anyone else of. It's simply pointing out a statement that was once made by someone. I don't think I even (inline) note who made it. How is it an "assertion"? It's not. It's a QUOTE.

Secondly, I think the whole following-edits-around-threatening-to-delete-anything-that-you-don't-like qualifies, at least minimally (?) as stalking in the Wikipedia sense. Let's not even get into Wikisource, your buddies and pals.

Thirdly, how many times must you accuse others and threaten others of things like this and lower yourself far below any level they might have gone to? "such bad behaviour will not be tolerated nay longer"? Will you like to see your poorer behavior being tolerated, Squeak? There's plenty of fodder for that fight.

I recommend, SqueakBox, that you heed Avruch's warning and recommendation above. There's no reason - other than the continued trolling behaviors - for you to be incessantly writing on Tlato's talk page. If you don't like essays, archives, project pages, or workspace pages, make your own for the opposite reasons. No need to go on (yet more) crusades against articles for which you have a personal, vendetta-like hatred or intolerance.

VigilancePrime (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Re: Adult-child sex

Hi TlatoSMD,

I weighed in on the discussion after it was brought under the attention at WP:MED. My interests are traditional medical articles, and I have a large backlog there, I'd rather focus on improving some of my own topics of interest and I'm so busy with Wikinews (not to mention in real life) that unfortunately I won't be able to help you with that. I strongly oppose the deletion however, but apparently I have a different idea about consensus than the admin community here.

All the best,

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your general good faith. Let me make clear though that all I intended to ask you was taking a glimpse at something to decide whether it would be worthwhile in English, while I'd be the one to translate it if your opinion would be positive. --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mal drüberschauen bitte

• This Section ist about the different (historical) Definition of terms about sexual preferences with implicit age definition. Mostly, but not only the Terms in German (orinal build from greec terms, like the english ones)

da. Fallen dir noch Ausdrücke ein? Weißt du vielleicht wo ich Bezeichnungen herbekomme? Gute GL-Seiten find ich derzeit keine. (nehme ich auch als Mail) Passt deiner Meinung nach soweit alles? Oder gibt es etwas auszusetzen? VG Fg68at de:Disk 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Huch, hallo Franz! Hast du mich über meine Babelbapperl gefunden, die ich gerade angebracht habe?

Zu den heutigen wissenschaftlichen Begriffen: Also, erstmal fehlt mir generell der ebenfalls von John Money stammende Begriff Teleiophilie als Zwischenstück zwischen Ephebophilie und Gerontophilie, also die gesellschaftlich vorgeschriebene Normsexualität. Päderastie wird sehr wohl auch in der seriösen Nachkriegsforschung noch bewußt für die männlich-gleichgeschlechtliche Pädophilie verwendet (z. T. bewußt als Oberbegriff für männlich-gleichgeschechtliche Pädophilie und Ephebophilie, um den Unterschied zwischen simple consent und informed consent zu verdeutlichen, der ja beileibe kein biologischer ist), siehe z. B. bei Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg Mannbarkeitsriten (1980, zweite Auflage 1985), bis eben im Laufe der 80er Jahre das Aufkommen der Mißbrauchsindustrie und dementsprechend in extremo nötige Ab- und Ausgrenzungsstrategien bei Akademikern wie im SchwuLesBischen Bereich nötig werden. Die Frage ist ja nicht zuletzt aufgrund der Akzeleration auch, ob die Griechen selber mit dem Begriff paiderastia nicht auch ausschließlich männlich-gleichgeschlechtliche Pädophilie gemeint haben. eran hatte die ausschließliche Bedeutung sexuellen Begehrens, was die Griechen durchaus von romantischerer -philia und dem Knabengott Eros unterschieden haben, auch wenn bei letzteren zwo ebenfalls Sexus im Spiel war (im englischen Artikel pedophilia hatte ich dazu mal eine deutsche Quelle aus dem 19. Jahrhundert eingefügt, wo ein homophober Reaktionär über die schmutzige Päderastie von Numa Numantius herzieht und dagegen die weit überlegene klassische Pädophilie, sprich die wenn auch erotisch gefärbte, aber vermeintlich im Umgang keusche Erziehung unreifer Knaben, setzt). Die Vermischung mit Inzest ist mir, wie du wohl weißt, als Ergebnis der Recovered Memory Therapy, ziemlich zuwider; denkt man denn bei Heterosexualität auch immer gleich an gleichaltrige Geschwister bzw. sollte es?

Zu Hirschfeld: Bei Hirschfeld fehlt die ganze Vorgeschichte, schließlich hat er seine ganzen Vorstellungen ja nur von Numa Numantius alias Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs geklaut und als das Ergebnis sorgfältiger eigener empirischer Forschung dargestellt. Was auch noch bei Hirschfeld fehlt, ist die Aussage, daß auch bei der Alterspräferenz hier alles davon abhing, wieviel biologischen Anteil "Männlichkeit" bzw. "Weiblichkeit" das Individuum eben besitzen sollte (50-50% Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit sollte ja immer bisexuelle Pädophilie erzeugen, etwas mehr Weiblichkeit nur Interesse am männlichen Kind, noch mehr Weiblichkeit Interesse am männlichen Burschen, etc.). Inwiefern die Einbeziehung von Zwittern einen: "großen Vorteil" darstellen soll, halte ich für fragwürdig, zumal ich mit Blick aufs Standardwerk Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1978 klar festsellen muß, daß es sich hier, wie auch bei der gesamten Biologisierung als sinnlose Laune der Natur, nur um die pseudowissenschaftliche Festschreibung uralter ethnozentrischer Vorstellungen, die überkommenen Geschlechterrollen inbegriffen, handelte, eventuell noch mit geändertem Vorzeichen; was die Schwulen ja aber auch nicht vor der Verschärfung von §175 und dem Rosa Winkel unter NS-Herrschaft bewahrt hat. Nach dem Krieg schoß die Schwulenbewegung aufgrund dieser Niederlage dann sofort in die andere Richtung aus und erfand den Begriff der sexuellen Orientierung, wonach das Sexualobjekt allein durch Prägung festgelegt würde, was man ja in gewissem Rahmen gelten lassen kann (wer Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88 folgt, nimmt hier ja auch nur ausschließlich die Pädophilie aus), aber als sich mit Aufkommen der Mißbrauchsindustrie die Schwulenbewegung zumindest in eigener Sache schon durchgesetzt hatte, hießen alle anderen Sexualobjekte außer erwachsenen Männern und Frauen plötzlich Paraphilie, um mit dieser Neubenennung die alten Perversionen mit Ausnahme der Inversionsfrage auch nur wieder nach herkömmlichem Muster von der höherwertigen Sexualität, nun eben Orientierung, auszugrenzen und abzuwerten. Jedenfalls, was die Sexualität als Ergebnis dieser ganzen: "Mischungsverhältnisse" von: "Männlichkeit" und: "Weiblichkeit" angeht, halte ich hier den Einfluß Hirschfelds, und durch ihn den von Numa Numantius, nicht zuletzt auch auf Kinsey mit seiner Homo-/Heteroskala für sehr wichtig. Vielleicht noch als Fußnote: Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg hält Bernard und Brongersma zur Pädophilie für viel seriösere und ernstzunehmendere Wissenschaftler als Hirschfeld zur Homosexualität.

Zur graphischen Übersicht: Wie wenig Nepiophilie und Pädophilie, besonders gleichgeschlechtliche Pädophilie, der empirischen Forschung nach zusammenzuhängen scheinen, siehst du im Artikel nepiophilia; was soll also der Balken bis ganz an den Anfang bei Pädophilie? Auch denke ich, daß man die jemenitische Haltung nicht als: "konservativ" bezeichnen kann (das übliche pseudofeministische Mißverständnis?), da wir es hier mit einem Ergebnis der Akzeleration zu tun haben; Pubertätseintritt mit 9 ist auch bei uns noch nicht allzulange die Norm (wobei ja wie immer Pubertät, also Zeugungsfähigkeit, und Adoleszenz, also Stimmbruch, Menarche, Körperbehaarung, Ausprägung sekundärer Geschlechtsmerkmale, Wachstumsschub, zu unterscheiden sind). Schutzalter 12 für männlich-gleichgeschlechtliche Handlungen gilt auch in Japan (bei anderen Paarungen liegt's deutlich höher), im Gesetz steht nur 13, weil der Japaner seine Geburt als den ersten Geburstag zählt, und Schutzalter 12 galt de facto auch im niederländischen Recht von 1990 bis 2002, als die EU mit der Rechtfertigung der EU-Angleichung Holland zwang, die Grenze wieder von 12 auf 16 raufzusetzen, wobei bemerkenswert ist, daß im Rahmen der Rechtfertigung von 2002 in den ganzen Niederlanden und über den Zeitraum von mehr als einem Jahrzehnt niemand auch nur einen einzigen Fall von psychischem oder sonstigem Schaden aufzeigen konnte, den das Schutzalter 12 hervorgerufen hatte (schließlich hatte man in der juristischen Praxis den Unterschied zwischen Freiwilligkeit und Zwang durchaus ernst genommen). Ansonsten halte ich es generell für falsch, Schutzalter und Heiratsalter ineinszusetzen, zumal ja auch in den Gesellschaften, wo kein Sex außerhalb der Ehe stattzufinden hat, die Unzucht mit Erwachsenen anders beurteilt wird als Sexualhandlungen mit Unmündigen bzw. Prädoleszenten.

GL-Seiten kenne ich nur eine, die an Sylvester 2007/'08 von Wikisposure gehackt wurde, nämlich Butterfly Kisses alias BK-Girls, die mit der Arbeit Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88 einen reichhaltigen Schatz an interdisziplinärer anthropologischer und soziobiologischer Forschung aufzuweisen hatten. Bei BK-Girls ist wie bei einem Großteil der Pädobewegung in den westlichen Industrieländern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zu betonen, daß es sich auch hier um gleichgeschlechtlich Interessierte handelt, sprich um pädophile Frauen, wie sie in der BRD während der 80er in Form der weiblichen Kanalratten organisiert waren. Ansonsten bin ich mal beim Googeln nach Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg auf ein deutsches GL-Forum gestoßen, wo heftig über ihre Arbeit von 1985/88 diskutiert wurde, aber das war's auch schon. Was hier in der englischen Wikipedia immer wieder genannt wird, sind BoyChat, GirlChat und der Name Lindsay Ashford (offenbar sowas wie ein amerikanisches GL-Pendant zu Tom O'Carroll), kenne davon aber selber nichts. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ich hab nach den Begriffen auf englisch gesucht und eine Talk-Seite gelesen und dann das mit dem gr/kl anders geschriebenen Doppelaccount, und da dacht ich mir, den kenn ich doch, schon lange nicht mehr gesehen. :-) Der weiß sicher was dazu. :-)

• Über die Teleiophilie bin ich auch gerade im Zuge der Recherchen gestoßen und hab sie unabhängig von deiner Erwähnung schon eingebaut.

• John Money hat so viel ich weiß den Begriff Chronophilie eingeführt. Teleiophilie ist nach dem was ich gelesen habe von Ray Blanchard (2000) oder eine andere Quelle sagt, und das stand auch einige Zeit im WP-Artikel, er sei von Kurt Freund, der ja zu der Zeit schon tot war, aber auch in Kanada gearbeitet hat. Hast du vielleicht einen Artikel oder ein Buch von Money, wo es drinsteht?

• Die Inzest habe ich gerade etwas abgegrenzt. Mir geht es nur darum, dass da relative Altersinformation impliziert ist. Bei der Tabelle übrigens die einzige die es auch im Bereich 20/50 gibt.

• Pädophiliegrafik: Hab ich einerseits daher und andererseits von der Grunddefinition "Kinder vor der Pubertät". Steht übrigens auch in der Tabelle "-14". Irgendwo hier habe ich auch in etwa gelesen "Pädophilie (unter Einschluss der Infantophilie)" Aber es ändert sich ja alles immer wieder und je nach Ansichtspunkt. Wahrscheinlich wäre es besser alles über den Haufen zu hauen und was völlig neues machen, was sich an den begehrten Eigenschaften orientiert. :-) Ich könnte deshalb einen dreistufigen Anfangsverlauf einbauen. Wäre der zwischen 0 und ungefähr 4 OK? Und ab dann Vollfarbe.

• Interessant wäre zu wissen ab wann überhaupt und ab wann in vermehrten Maße (wahrscheinlich 80er) Pädophilie auch für Mädchen verwendet wird. Und wahrscheinlich gleichzeitig wie es mit der Verwendung von "Korophilie" ausschaut, wie sehr die verschwindet. Wenn das erst nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg ist oder vielleicht auch wenn es nach ~1968 ist, dann kann ich mir vorstellen Korophilie oben dazuzugeben und einen zweiten Pädophiliebalken dazuzugeben, so dass die Welt gleich weiß wie verwirrend das ganze ist. :-)

• Ich kann mir auch vorstellen die Begriffssysteme anderer Wissenschaftler darzustellen. Entweder für bestimmte Werke oder auch für den Wissenschaftler insgesamt, soferne es halbwegs durchgängig ist. Oder auch eine möglichst mit Quellenbeispielen fundierte historische Begriffswandlaung. Abhandlungen wird es da eher weniger geben. Bei Informationen bin ich da aber eher auf dich angewiesen. Hab derzeit schon genug mit "was alles ist zu welchem historischen Zeitpunkt": Sexuelle Orientierung / Sexuelle Neigung & Sexualpräferenz / de:Drittes Geschlecht / Sodomie (Ja, auch von mir. :-) Akzeptabel für das katholosche Weltbild geschrieben.) / de:Travestie und inzuge dessen bald de:Transvestitismus zu tun.

• Zu den 9 Jahren: Die gibt es auch im iranischen Gesetz, weiß aber nicht seit wann. So in etwa sind dann Mädchen ab 9 strafmündig und Buben ab 13 oder so. Hab ich aus den Kommentaren zu diesem Artikel

So, jetzt hol ich mal was zum Futtern und dann gehts mit Päderastie und Pädophilie & Ephebophilie weiter. Das wird ja immer interessanter. --Fg68at de:Disk 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Was John Money und Teleiophilie angeht, hast du mich tatsächlich auf dem falschen Fuß erwischt; ich hatte immer vermutet, der Begriff stamme aus seiner Love map.

Was die Graphik angeht, würde ich mit Bezug auf die empirischen Daten aus Bernard 1982, die bis jetzt wohl die vollständigsten und transparentesten mit einer für den Bereich konkrete Alterspräferenz außergewöhnlich großen Materialmenge sind, eher einen mehrstufigen Anfangsverlauf für Pädophilie zwischen 5-7/8 ziehen, keineswegs schon bei null anfangen. Und auch Vogt 2006 hat ja keine Nepios unter Pädos gefunden.

Pädophilie wird schon seit 1886 auch für Interesse an Mädchen verwendet; als v. Krafft-Ebing den Begriff der Paedophilia erotica in seiner Psychopathia Sexualis eingeführt hat, hat er den vollkommen geschlechtsneutral verwendet. Die Forschung war dann nach v. Krafft-Ebing natürlich erstmal quasi null, erst das WHK unter Hirschfeld hat sich während der Weimarer Zeit ein bißchen mit gleichgeschlechtlicher Pädophilie unter empirischen Gesichtspunkten beschäftigt, auch wenn sie das nicht immer so genannt hat. Die moderne Pädophilieforschung fängt erst mit Bernard um 1939/'40 in den Niederlanden an, natürlich durch den Krieg unterbrochen. Bernard war derjenige, der als allererster durchgängig und häufig den Begriff Pädophilie verwendet hat, und zwar immer für beide Geschlechter, nach dem Krieg ist dann Brongersma dazugekommen. Brongersma war aber persönlich eher an Ephebophilie interessiert und hat bis in die 50er oder 60er eher diffus von Knabenliebhabern geschrieben. Ab Mitte der 60er verwendet Brongersma dann auch den Begriff Pädophilie, nimmt aber die Tatsache, daß er und Bernard in ihrer internationalen Tätigkeit fast überall nur gleichgeschlechtlich Interessierte finden, zum Anlaß, nur bei gleichgeschlechtlichem Interesse von Pädophilie zu sprechen. Wer, selten genug, auch an andersgeschlechtlichen Kindern Interesse hatte, bei dem war das immer zweitrangig gegenüber Interesse an Erwachsenen, solche Leute haben sich selbst auch nicht als pädophil gesehen, und, was wohl am wichtigsten ist, Sexualverhalten und Sexualziel waren ganz anders, und es bestand auch kein Interesse an fester romantischer Verbindung im Sinne einer Partnerschaft. Wie u. a. auch Borneman für die 80er und Lautmann für die 90er schreibt, waren echte Pädophile eher an kindlichen Doktorspielen interessiert und hatten damit kein Interesse daran, Kinder zu penetrieren. Damit einhergehend hatten echte Pädophile viel sorgfältiger entwickeltere Konsensstrategien, d. h. ihre eigenen Wünsche haben sie immer hinten angestellt und hatten, Zitat Lautmann, ein "viel feiner entwickelteres Instrumentarium" für die Stimmung von Kindern und einhergehend wesentlich mehr Respekt vor den Gefühlen von Kindern; man kann wohl etwas vereinfacht davon sprechen, daß echte Pädophile im Unterschied zum Ersatzobjekttäter ein wirkliches emotionales, keineswegs irgendwie berechnendes Interesse am Kindeswohl und der Zufriedenheit des Partners im allgemeinen (sprich nicht nur im Sexuellen) besaßen. Ersatzobjekttäter dagegen, die also Sekundärinteresse an Kindern des anderen Geschlechts hatten, kümmerten sich nur wenig um Stimmung und eigene Wünsche, Wohl und Wehe der Kinder, wollten lediglich per Penetration Dampf ablassen, und hatten keinerlei Interesse an einer Beziehung. Empirisch dasselbe wie bei Bernard und Brongersma findet sich ja unter anderem bei Borneman 1985 und Sandforts Langzeitstudie, die sich ja schließlich auch die Mühe gemacht haben, zwischen Pädophilen und Nichtpädophilen zu unterscheiden.

Daher war der große Unterschied zwischen Bernard und Brongersma, daß Brongersma aus empirischen Gründen nur gleichgeschlechtliche Pädophilie gelten ließ, während Bernard, wohl aus Rücksicht auf eine homophobe Mehrheit und mit Verweis auf formbare, polymorph-perverse Sexualität nach Freud, also sexuelle Orientierung, abstrakt von einem geschlechtsneutralen Konzept Pädophilie sprach.

Daß dann ab den 70er Jahren zunehmend in den USA, ab den 80er Jahren auch in Kontinentaleuropa fast ausschließlich von Mädchen die Rede war, lag an einem stark ideologisch geprägten Pseudofeminismus, der plötzlich meinte, Kinder vor einem lüsternen Patriarchat schützen zu müssen; an sich eine ziemlich seltsame Konstruktion, wenn man bedenkt, daß das Patriarchat immer grundlegend leibfeindlich gewesen ist, besonders gegegenüber tatsächlicher oder vermeintlicher sexueller Abweichung. Schwarzer verstieg sich hierzulande in ihrem 1980 in der Emma geführten Interview (in dem sie auch das speziell deutsche Konstrukt des abstrakten Machtunterschieds eingeführt hat) sogar so weit in den ihr eigenen egozentrischen Narzißmus, daß sie die Pädobewegung als das Ergebnis ihres ganz persönlichen eigenen Erfolgs dargestellt hat; weil Schwarzer im Laufe der 70er so erfolgreich war, könnten Männer nun keine Frauen mehr ausbeuten und mißhandeln, und daher würden sie jetzt eben auf Kinder umsteigen. Was natürlich völlig falsche Datierungen, falsch konstruierte Ursache-Wirkungs-Verhältnisse und eine gigantische Selbstüberschätzung im Sinne eines internationalen Einflusses Schwarzers bedeutete.

Zur Rolle von falsch verstandenem Pseudofeminismus, der nur die patriarchalische Leibfeindlichkeit fortgeführt hat, als Totengräber der Pädobewegung gibt es ein paar historische Studien, die für die Entwicklung des Pädophiliebegriffs auch nicht unwichtig sind. Ein wenig findet sich bei Schuijer & Rossen, The trade in child pornography, aus Issues in child abuse accusations, Nr. 4, 1992; ausführlicheres gibt es bei Pat Califia, The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77, The Aftermath of the Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77, Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights, Katharina Rutschky, Erregte Aufklärung - Kindesmissbrauch: Fakten & Fiktionen (1992, Klein Verlag) und Handbuch sexueller Mißbrauch (1994, Klein Verlag; 2. erweiterte Auflage 1999 bei Rowohlt), sowie einiges zur speziell deutschen Entwicklung bei Florian Mildenberger, Beispiel Peter Schult - Pädophilie im öffentlichen Diskurs (2006, Männerschwarm Verlag).

Mildenberger bietet darüberhinaus auch eine Chronik der westdeutschen Pädobewegung, und zur internationalen Geschichte der Bewegung unter Bernard und Brongersma findet man dazu einiges bei Bernard 1982 (Nachwort: Rückblick und Ausblick), Brian Taylor, Perspectives on paedophilia (1981, Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd., daraus The paedophile's progress: A view from below), Joachim S. Hohmann, Pädophilie heute (1980, Foerster Verlag, darin findet sich ein Interview mit Bernard), Angelo Leopardi, Der pädosexuelle Komplex (1988, Foerster Verlag, die DGFSS scheint bis heute ganz stolz über ihre Mitarbeit an diesem wie auch dem vorigen Buch zu sein, und auch das Magnus-Hirschfeld-Archiv für Sexualwissenschaft zitiert auf seiner Website aus beiden exzessiv, um zu belegen, daß langfristig nur die vollkommene Legalisierung in Frage kommen kann), Brongersma, Sandfort, van Naerssen, Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and legal perspectives (1991, Hayword Press), einige Beiträge in Bernards Buch Pädophilie ohne Grenzen - Theorie, Forschung, Praxis (1997), sowie A Conversation with Dr Frits Bernard - Pioneer (das letzte große Interview, das er vor seinem Tod gegeben hat). Damit immer recht stark überschnitten hat sich ja auch die Entwicklung der Begriffsgeschichte zur Pädophilie bzw. zu Sexualhandlungen zwischen Mündigen und Unmündigen, der ein eigenes Kapitel bei Mildenberger gewidmet ist (was natürlich nur die Chronik einer seit der Aufklärung zunehmenden ideologischen Dämonisierung ist).

Zum Thema Sodomie dürfte dich der englische Artikel Sodomy interessieren, der in dieser Form größtenteils auf meinem Mist gewachsen ist, alles streng nach Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1978 (deren Lektüre auch deinem Artikel auf der Kathpedia und dem Artikel zum Dritten Geschlecht gut tun dürfte, wohl mit ein paar zusätzlichen Fakten aus de:Angst und Vorurteil). --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ich überlege mir für Sodomie einen Hergemöller zuzulegen.

• Sodom und Gomorrha, Männerschwarm, 2000, ISBN 3-928983-81-4 (500-1500 n. Chr.) oder

• Bernd U Hergemöller (Hrsg.), Robert Jütte, Gerd Mentgen: Randgruppen der spätmittelalterlichen Gesellschaft, Fahlbusch u. Rieger, 2001, ISBN 3-925522-20-4

Du textest mich ja ziehmlich zu. :-) Kenn ich, bin manchmal auch nicht anders. :-) So einiges handelt von der emotionalen Rolle des Wortes im Laufe der Zeit, was mich derzeit weniger interessiert. Interessant ist derzeit vor allem: Was wird damit bezeichnet: Alter, Geschlecht, Definition, Abgrenzung.

• Pädophilie: Er wird gebraucht von 0-14 und das ist reine Definitionssache. Es ist nur ein Wort. Ich kann beide Gruppierungen unter ein Wort fassen. Ggü. dem Gesetz wäre es egal, deshalb wird selten differenziert. Man könnte auch Zusätze vor die Pädophilie stellen. Noch wird es von vielen / von den meisten gebraucht für alles was vor der Pubertät ist. Verwenden Barnard und Vogel das Wort Pädophil erst für solche, deren Präferenz bei 5 beginnt und für die anderen nicht? Dass die meisten einen eingegrenzteren Geschmack haben ist für mich erst in zweiter Linie von Bedeutung. Ich muss beidem Gerecht werden. Wenn jemand das Wort sucht, dann soll er sehen worum es geht. Und zwar in der Bedeutung, die wahrscheinlich seinem Text zugrundeliegt. ITP zB hat die Begriffe Infantophilie und Nepiophilie nicht einmal erwähnt. Ich führe den Begriff trotzdem auf, weil ich ihn erklären möchte.

• Kennst du vorkommen von Pädophilie für 0-16 oder 0-18 oder ähnliches? Oder wird es nur umgangssprachlich vermengt?

• Bernard war derjenige, der als allererster durchgängig und häufig den Begriff Pädophilie verwendet hat, und zwar immer für beide Geschlechter, Was wurde vorher verwendet?

• Bleibtreu hat Päderastie als Oberbegriff für Pädophilie und Ephebophilie verwendet. Wie war Ephebophilie bei ihr definiert? Wer hat dies sonst noch getan? (&Quelle)

• deutsche Quelle aus dem 19. Jahrhundert: Vor Psychopathia sexualis? Und bis 1. August 2007 habe ich mit WBlame kein "Numa" im engl. Artikel Pädophilie gefunden.

• Hirschfeld: biologischen Anteil "Männlichkeit" bzw. "Weiblichkeit" das hat doch nicht die Bezeichnung verändert auf was er steht. Nur auf was er steht. Sexuelle Orientierung ist wo anders und dort werde ich Hirschfeld vielleicht noch einbauen. Siehe auch de:Kinsey-Skala, de:Sexuelle Orientierung. In den jetzigen Artikel gehört das meiner Meinung nach nicht.

• Hirschfeld Vorgeschichte: Einerseits bin ich einmal froh, dass ich überhaupt diese eine Quelle gefunden habe. Das Konzept und ein Teil der Begriffe wird ja heute nicht mehr verwendet. Was die Vorgeschichte angeht: Hat Ulrichs auch schon die Begriffe verwendet? Oder nur das Konzept? Ich spreche jetzt nur von den Altersvorlieben.

• Gafik, Akltersgrenzen und Heirat. Schutzalter und Heiratsalter sind 2 festgelegte Kenngrößen einer Gesellschaft due unterschiedlich sind und sich verändern. Sie sollen als oberes Beispiel dienen. Also ein 16jähriger, der für den Päderasten interessant ist, kann bei Zustimmung sogar schon heiraten wenn sie älter ist. Oder soll ich die Firmung und Jugendweihe und andere Initiationsriten eintragen?

• Bin auch etwas die Wöterbücherdurchgegangen. Pädophilie ist ein seltenes Wort. Aus dem medizinischen hab ich ein bißchen mehr genommen.

• Der Sexualwissenschaftler Ernest Bornemann macht Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts einen klaren Unterschied zwischen Päderastie, Pädophilie (Liebe zum Kind), Pedicatio (Analverkehr) und Homosxualität. http://www.sgipt.org/sonstig/metaph/sexrel/paedophi0.htm & Bezeichnung für das Homosexuelle

• ~ 1740: Zedler: http://www.zedler-lexikon.de/ kein Eintrag Päderastie und kein Eintrag Pädophilie w:Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste

• Bis 1800: Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch: [1]: Kein Eintrag

• 1811: Adelung, Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart, [2]: Kein Eintrag

• 1856: Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1856, Band 4, S. 440 Päderastie, aber keine Pädophilie

• 1857 Pierer: Päderastie, aber keine Pädophilie, (2) Knabenschänderei, keine nähere Definition

• 1858 Johann Georg Krünitz: Oekonomische Encyklopädie oder allgemeines System der Staats- Stadt- Haus- und Landwirthschaft, 1773-1858 [3] Päderastie (Knabenschänderey, Sodomie, von Knabe bis Mann), Keine Pädophilie

• ~1892: Meyers Konversationslexikon: Päderastie keine Pädophilie

• 1896: Brockhaus' Konversationslexikon - Autorenkollektiv, F. A. Brockhaus in Leipzig, Berlin und Wien, 14. Auflage, 1894-1896 Päderastie (Knabenliebe, Homosexualität allgemein) aber keine Pädophilie

• Sachs-Villatte. Enzyklopädisches französisch-deutsches und deutsch-französisches Wörterbuch. Hand- und Schul-Ausgabe, Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Prof. G. Langenscheidt), Berlin-Schöneberg 1909

• • frz.: pédéraste: Päderast

• • frz : pédérastie : Päderastie; Knabenschänderei

• • dt : Knaben ~schänderei : pédérastie

• • dt : Päderast :´pédéraste

• • keine Pädophilie

• 1911 Brockhaus: Päderastie Knabenliebe und Homosexualität, keine Pädophilie

• 1927: Otto Dornblüth / Klinisches Wörterbuch: Päderastie, keine Pädophilie [4]

• 1932: Walter Marle: Guttmanns Medizinische Terminologie, Urban & Schwarzenberg, 25. & 26. Auflage, Berlin & Wien 1932

• • Androgynie: [(gr) Weib]: 1. Hermaphroditismus. 2. Pseudohermaphroditismus masculinus. 3. Feminismus. Vgl. Gynandrie

• • Bisexualität: Das normale zweigeschlechtliche Fühlen. Vgl. homosexuell

• • Effeminato: 1. Feminismus 2. Passive Paederastie

• • Feminismus: [femina Weib]: Vorhandensein weiblicher (körperlicher u. psychischer) Eigenschaften bei Männern, spez. homosexuellen. Vgl. Effiminato, Androgynie

• • Gynandrie: 1. Pseudohermaphroditismus femininus 2. Masculinismus

• • Heterosexualismus: 1. Das Auftreten heterosexueller Merkmale; z.B. nach Kastration. 2. Das normale Geschlechtsleben, im Gegensatz zum homosexuellen

• • Heterosexuell: Das andere Geschlecht betreffend. Auch Gegensatz zu homosexuell.

• • Homosexualität: Geschlechtstrieb zu Menschen desselben Geschlechts. Adj.: homosexuell. Vgl. Urning, Tribadie, konträre Sexualempfindung, lesbische Liebe, Effeminatio, Feminismus, Viraginität, Bisexualität

• • Konträre Sexualempfindung (Westphal): Krankhafte Richtung d. Geschlechtstriebes zu Personen desselben Geschlechts, weiter auch die Empfindung, dem ganzen inneren Wesen nach d. eigenen Geschlechte entfremdet zu sein. Vgl. homosexuell

• • Lesbische Liebe: Sapphismus

• • Masculinismus: [masculinus männlich]: Männliche Beschaffenheit weiblicher Individuen in körperlicher u. geistiger Beziehung.

• • Paederastie: Knabenliebe, -schändung; gleichgeschlechtlicher Mißbrauch von Knaben. Dann überhaupt widernatürliche Unzucht zw. Personen männlichen Geschlechts (§ 175 St.G.B.). Spez. die Form, wobei es sich um die Einführung des Penis in den After handelt (aktive und passive P.). Vgl. Paedicatio, homosexuell

• • Paedicatio: [paedico Knaben schänden]: Paederastie. / P. mulierum: Einführung des Penis in den After von Weibern

• • Paedophilia: 1. Unzüchtige Handlungen mit Kindern. Syn. P. erotica. 2. Homosexuelle Neigung zu Knaben

• • Sapphismus: [nach d. lesbischen Dichterin Sappho, um 600 v. Chr.]: Homosexueller Trieb bei den Weibern; spez. Lecken an Genitalien eines anderen Weibes zur Befriedigung d. Geschlechtstriebes. Syn. sapphische o. lesbische Liebe. Vgl. Tribadismus

• • Tribade: [(gr) von (gr) reiben, lat. trictrix]: Homosexuelles Weib. / Tribadismus: Geschlechtlicher Verkehr zw. Weibern, bes. Aneinanderreiben d. Genitalien bzw. Imissio clitoridis eines Weibes in die Vagina der anderen. Syn. Tribadie, tribadische Liebe, Vgl. Sapphismus

• • Uranismus: [nach Uranos, d. Vater der ohne Mutter geborenen Aphrodite Urania]: Homosexueller Trieb bei den Männern. Die betreffenden heißen daher Uranisten oder Urninge. Vgl. Tribadismus

• • Urning: s. Uranismus

• • Virago [lat., von vir Mann]: Mannweib. Die Viraginität ist das gegenstüvk zum Effeminatio

• Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm. 16 Bde. [in 32 Teilbänden]. Leipzig: S. Hirzel 1854-1960: Sodomie, aber keine Pädophilie und keine Päderastie

• 1964: Der neue Brockhaus. Allbuch in fünf Bänden und einem Atlas. Dritte, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage, F. A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden 1964

• • Homosexualität: [griech.-lat. Kw.] die gleichgeschlechtliche Liebe. Sie ist meist lebensgeschichtlich (Geschlechtskrankheit, starke Mutterbindung in der Kindheit, Versagen beim ersten Geschlechtsakt u.a.) und nur selten genetisch bedingt und gilt daher als in der Regel rückbildungsfähige Störung. (-> lesbische Liebe)
    Rechtliches. Nach § 175 StGB. wird Unzucht zwischen Männern mit Gefängnis, in schweren Fällen (§ 174a) mit Zuchthaus bestraft; die H. der Frauen ist nicht strafbar (trotz Art.3 GG). In Österreich wird die H., gleich viel ob zwischen Männern oder Frauen, mit schwerem Kerker bestraft (§§ 129, 130 StGB.). Das schweizer StGB. (Art. 194) bestraft nur gewerbsmäßige oder die unter Mißbrauch eines Abhängigkeitsverhältnisses begangene H. Straffrei ist die H. in den niederlanden und den roman. Ländern.

• • Päderastie: [griech. 'Knabenliebe'] die gleichgeschlechtliche Beziehung von älteren zu jüngeren Männern oder Knaben, z.B. im alten Griechenland, abgestuft von grobsinnl. Verhältnissen bis zu erotischen Formen pflegerischer oder erotischer Fürsorge (-> Homosexualität)

• • Pädophilie: -

• • Sodomie: [nach der Stadt Sodom] die Unzucht von Menschen mit Tieren, S, wird nach § 175b StGB. mit Gefängnis bestraft. Eigw. sodomitisch

• 1966: Der Große Duden - Band 5 - Fremndwörterbuch:

• • Päderast: Kinäde, ein der Päderastie verfallener

• • Päderatie: Knabenliebe; männl. Homosexualität

• • Pädophilie: Unzucht mit Kindern (Med., Psychol.)

• 1994 APA: Über 16 mit präpubertär, meist unter 13 Webster online

• 1995: Köbler, Gerhard, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995 [5] Kein Eintrag

• 2004 glbtq.com: 1.) Päderastie ist spezifischer als Pädophilie da keine Kinder und nur Buschen gemeint sind. 2.) Definitionsbox hinter dem Link: Pädophilie ist zwischen Erwachsenen und präpubertären Kindern [6]

• Im ganzen Zeno.org kommt es nur in Wikipedia vor [7]

--Fg68at de:Disk 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Meinst du mit Vogel den anarchistischen Reporter Wolf Vogel? Mit dem habe ich mich nicht allzuviel befaßt. Bernard kennt Worte wie Nepiophilie und Infantophilie noch nicht, stellt aber auch keine dementsprechende Alterspräferenzen fest. Zumindest hält er deshalb wörtlich fest, daß Pädophile nichts mit: "Kleinkindern" am Hut haben.

Mit der Frage der Beziehung zwischen Pädophilie und Ephebophilie sprichst du eine recht komplexe Sache an. Bernard hat rausgefunden, daß viele, wenn nicht die meisten Pädophilen sekundär auch noch gleichgeschlechtlich ephebophil sind, und u. a. Lautmann stellt fest, daß viele primäre pädophile Knabenliebhaber sekundär Interesse an erwachsenen Frauen bis hin zu den Wechseljahren haben, was anders als ihre Pädophilie häufig durchaus ein erwachsenes Sexualziel (Penetration) beinhaltet. Daraus hat Bernard im Laufe der Zeit die Konsequenz gezogen, den Begriff Ephebophilie überhaupt zu vermeiden und bei Interesse bis zum 18.-20. Lebensjahr immer von Pädophilie zu sprechen, sofern die Primärpräferenz nicht über die frühe Adoleszenz hinausging. Aus ganz anderer Richtung kam dann die reaktionäre Mißbrauchsindustrie und der Pseudofeminismus, für die, da ihr Bernards eigene Arbeiten total unbekannt waren, alles unterhalb der Schutzalters- wenn nicht gar der Volljährigkeitsgrenze undifferenziert der größte überhaupt vorstellbare Super-GAU war, in welchem Zusammenhang dann viele Quellen aus dieser Ecke angefangen haben, den von Bernard popularisierten Ausdruck Pädophilie bzw. Pädophile generell als abwertendes Schimpfwort zu verwenden, sogar für Beziehungen, wo z. B. ein Partner Mitte 20 ist und der andere Mitte 40.

Vor Bernard hat man, je nach Situation in wechselnden Graden von Ironie, haßerfüllter Abwertung und vereinzelten Rehabilitierungsversuchen, von Kinderschändung, Kinderschänder, Päderastie, Knaben- bzw. Mädchenverführer ("Verführung" stand damals noch zumeist, besonders mit Unmündigen, für die direkte Vorstellung erzwungener, gewaltsamer Vergewaltigung), Kinderfreund, guten Onkeln, Unzucht mit Minderjährigen oder allgemein von Triebtätern gesprochen. Dabei war zu der Zeit die gleichgeschlechtliche Verführung Unmündiger noch viel schlimmer als die zwischengeschlechtliche. Bis mindestens Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts hießen noch alle nichtzeugungsrelevanten Sexualhandlungen pauschal einfach Sodomie btw. eingedeutscht widernatürliche Unzucht, alias Unzucht wider die Natur, alias Unkeusch gegen die Natur usw., wobei statt i, ie und u oft noch y stand.

Uff, es ist schon einige Zeit her, daß ich Mannbarkeitsriten gelesen habe. Wie gesagt, ging es bei der breiten Auslegung von Päderastie bewußt um den Unterschied zwischen simple consent und informed consent, oder auf deutsch gesagt, ob der männliche Heranwachsende bereits sozialen Erwachsenenstatus, und damit erwachsene Rechte und Pflichten, erlangt hatte. Wie Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg auch 1985/88 geschrieben hat, bei den meisten Naturvölkern sind Mündigkeits- und Heiratsmindestalter noch gleich und fallen zumeist mit dem Pubertäts- bzw. Adolszenzbeginn zusammen (was also jeweils, bei Pubertätsbeginn, primärpädophile, bzw., bei Adolesnzenzbeginn, primärephebophile Interessen berührt), weil dann in einfachen Kulturen alle nötigen Kenntnisse zur Ernährung einer Familie bereits internalisiert sind. Erst beim Entstehen von Hochkulturen werden beide, Mündigkeits- und Heiratsmindestalter, von dieser körperlichen Entwicklung abgekoppelt und stark heraufgesetzt, weil für die Internalisierung einer komplexeren Sozialordnung mehr Zeit benötigt wird, bis man die verantwortliche Erwachsenenrolle in ihr einnehmen kann. Nichtfortpflanzungsrelevante Sexualhandlungen, ob gleichgeschlechtliche, mit Kindern oder Petting, bleiben davon total unbehelligt und sind weiterhin akzeptiert.

Im Abendland kam es dann mit Beginn der Eisenzeit zu einer extrem homophoben und fortpflanzungszentrierten Entwicklung, so daß aller Verkehr außerhalb der Ehe verboten und verfolgt wurde, aber besonders gleichgeschlechtliche Handlungen. Unzucht, die nun generell als bedrohlich und schädlich galt, sollte natürlich von wehrlosen Kindern ferngehalten werden, die Kinderschändung im allgemeinen wurde aber gegegenüber der als viel naheliegenderen Bedrohung empfundenen Gleichgeschlechtlichkeit, auch durch Knabenschändung, als weniger schlimm angesehen.

Erst mit Beginn der Aufklärung hat sich die Homophobie ganz langsam zu lockern begonnen; um aber die alte Leibfeindlichkeit und die alten mythologischen Unholdsvorstellungen anhand neuer Paradigmen umzudefinieren, wurde speziell die kindliche Unschuld sprich Geschlechtslosgkeit und als das diese bedrohendes Gegenstück der Kinderschänder konstruiert, und so kam es dann zur Einführung von Schutzaltersgrenzen (zusätzlich zu den bisherigen Unzuchtsverboten im Sinne der Unzucht unter Erwachsenen), die besonders im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert in dem Maße immer weiter angehoben wurden, wie das Kind immer unschuldiger und der Kinderschänder immer gefährlicher wurde. Ab Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts köchelte das dann immer auf gleicher Flamme, bis nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, genauer in den 60er und 70er Jahren Schwulen- und Frauenbewegung sich durchgesetzt hatten und als Feindbilder wegfielen, so daß die Pädophilen nun den vollen Haß abbekamen. Zu diesen geschichtlichen Entwicklungen im Zusammenhang mit Mündigkeit und Schutzalter, die dann consent-Unterscheidungen jenseits natürlicher biologischer Grenzen (die einstmals lediglich das Heiratsalter, aber eben kein Schutzalter vorgegeben hatten) und den abstrakten Begriff vom Machtgefälle (wo es eigentlich um das Machtgefälle zwischen Unterhaltsfähigen und Nichtunterhaltfähigen geht, also um die Frage, ob jemand eine Familie ernähren kann, und nicht, ob man biologisch alt genug für einen trockenen Orgasmus ist) zur Folge hatten, s. auch Rutschky, Schwarze Pädagogik (1977), Brongersma in Hohmann 1980, und Mildenberger. Zu weiteren Quellen für die aus diesen Überlegungen folgende weite Auslegung von Päderastie müßte ich erst Mannbarkeitsriten wieder ausbuddeln, was aber einige Zeit dauern kann. Auf jedenfalls benutzt Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg den Begriff Päderastie 1986 nochmal kurz, im Vorwort zur deutschen Ausgabe von Sandforts Langzeitstudie, wo sie allerdings keine genauen Altersangaben macht, außer daß sie etwas vage in einem Nebensatz von: "Pädophilie, und deren männlich-gleichgeschlechtliche Form Päderastie" spricht.

Ja, der Streit Pädophilie vs. Päderastie spielte sich um 1865, rund 20 Jahre vor der Erstausgabe der Psychopathia Sexualis ab, beide Ausdrücke waren dabei klar männlich-gleichgeschlechtlich definiert, aber trotz einiger subtiler Anklänge an Knabenschändung offenbar nicht allzusehr auf ein spezielles Alter fixiert. Bei der den Streit belegenden Fußnote handelt es sich um die Nummer 4 im gegenwärtigen Artikel Pedophilia (Numa Numantius war das Pseudonym, das Ulrichs nach einiger Zeit abgelegt hat):

Anonymous (probably Geigel, Alois. 1869) Das Paradoxon der Venus Urania ("The paradox of man-manly love"), p. 6. OCLC 68582227 OCLC 77768935 Reprinted as a complete facsimile in Hohmann, Joachim S. (1977). Der unterdrückte Sexus ("Historical oppression of sexuality"). ISBN 3879587124 Template:De icon. The anonymous 1869 author had harshly rejected the theories of early LGBT activist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs whose "filthy pederasty" he contrasted with chaste, "sublime paedophilia" basing both definitions on the classical meaning boy for παις instead of the non-classical meaning child, and εραστια ("erastia") as pure "sexual desire", contrasted with more sublime φιλία.</ref>''

Hirschfeld: biologischen Anteil "Männlichkeit" bzw. "Weiblichkeit" das hat doch nicht die Bezeichnung verändert auf was er steht. Nur auf was er steht. Das habe ich nicht so ganz verstanden.

Ulrichs hat sich seine eigenen Ausdrücke erfunden, Schwule hießen bei ihm Urning (nach der Venus urania, der: "Göttin der mann-männlichen Liebe"), Heteros hießen Dioning (nach Dionysos), und Bisexuelle Urning-Dioning, ansonsten alles genauso wie bei Hirschfeld mit der Biologisierung und verschiedenen Mischungen an Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit, der ein halbes Jahrhundert später schon die uns heute bekannten Begriffe verwendet. An Ausdrücken hat Ulrichs allerdings das Dritte Geschlecht erstmals durchgängig auf Schwule angewandt, und selbst erfunden hat er auch den Begriff von der weiblichen Seele im männlichen bzw. falschen Körper. Für die verschiedenen Alterspräferenzen, die nach ihm auch von den Männlich-Weiblich-Mischungsverhältnissen herrührten, hat er keine eigenen Ausdrücke gehabt außer eben für sas Objekt an sich (Knabe, Bursch...); Päderastie scheint er allgemein hin und wieder für Interesse von Männern am eigenen Geschlecht verwendet zu haben (zu einer Zeit, als der Ausdruck meistens Analverkehr bedeutete). Vollständige Lithographien einiger Werke von Ulrichs gibt's im obengenannten Der unterdrückte Sexus, als Biographien Ulrichs' gibt es noch Volkmar Sigusch: Karl Heinrich Ulrichs - Der erste Schwule der Weltgeschichte (2000, Bibliothek rosa Winkel) sowie Michael A. Lombardi-Nash: The Riddle of Man-Manly Love - The Pioneering Work on Male Homosexuality (1994, Prometheus Books). --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

I'll try to handle the subpage issue. However, I couldn't revert it now, because such action will constitute wheel warring. Cheers. @pple complain 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just at a loss of words at this overwhelming audacity, self-righteousness, and flaming name-calling. Some people need to be held accountable for this, including admins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the 3RR policy only applies to the action of reverting 3 times on a single page within 24 hours by a single user. However, this type of actions are involved by 3 users including 2 admins and related to administrative manipulation. Accordingly, there is no 3RR violation here. I am very sorry about this. Cheers. @pple complain 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said "something like a 3RR". --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28#User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex and give comment. Cheers. @pple complain 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah. I wish it hadn't come to another DRV, it's the last thing we need. Let me ask: what do you want to do with the draft now that the article's deletion has been endorsed? Would it be sufficient for you to have a copy on your own hard drive instead of in user space? Mangojuice^talk 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Answered in ANI and in DRV. Anyway, if you wanna complain about all the recent AfDs, MfDs, and DRVs, go complain to Squeak. It's a one-man disruptive vandalism crusade. He started every single AfD, MfD, and speedy delete tagging. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

email

I cant send you what you asked for unless you enable your email or email me. Do you still need any of it?DGG (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc pages

Yo T! I have another Documentation page, User:VigilancePrime/Doc:VigilancePrime. Would love your help. I figure Squeak might even contribute.

Actually, on a side note, I was wondering if you have a list of URLs/links for all the AfD/MfD/DRV/ANI/etc. that Squeak's been using on his Crusades lately. I don't. I only have a couple links. If you ever do take him to ArbCom for his constant harrassment, let me know. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Oh well, he declined to help. I let him know that he's always welcome. Any help I can get would be great! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, now some admin has even protected Adult-child sex from ever being edited again! As an ordinary editor peon, you can't even check out anymore who did it now! 0.o

I don't quite see what your new page could be good for right now. Are you intending to document your very own misdemeanors instead of his?

I'm sorry, I'm too much of a coward to start anything like an RfM or ArbCom for myself, though I gladly join in wherever it's needed.

Anyway, links of stuff Squeak started only recently:

• 1.) MfD for your Squeak doc

• 2.) ACS AfD, take 1 (now that i think of it, it was absolutely illegal for him to list it again because he used exactly the same rationale, and the same delete rationales came up as in the first one, another reason why this second AfD was absolutely ILLEGITIMATE and INVALID!)

• 3.) ACS AfD, take 2

• 4.) My draft of ACS was tagged by him as well for speedy deletion, however it's not visible anymore if you're not an admin with access to the logs that are now deleted as well. I'm glad User:@pple gave me a few minutes to copy it to my PC before it was deleted again by Guy with the same non-sensical, policy and consensus violating claim.

• 5.) Here he tagged my German article for speedy deletion.

That's all, for now. He singlehandedly got probably several hundred people busy, up in arms, and at each other's throats by those first 4 cases of disruptive vandalism, and the relating Reviews also touched upon the 5th lately. He knew this would happen, because of all that had happened before when he tried purging by polling. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I figure, if there's anything to fill in that page, let's collect it all in one place! (Besides, it's hardly an attack page when it's composed solely of quotes and links!) Anyway, I am still waiting for anyone who has accused me of direct personal attacks to show me one single instance of name-calling on my part. It hasn't been done because it cannot be done.

Yes, Squeak has busied a lot of people. I at least admire his seeming ability to devote most of his whole day, most every day, to Wikipedia. I wish I had that kind of time.

Keep in touch, VigilancePrime (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Deletion Review

Hello Tlato. I've been watching the DRV for your subpage (as it was a recreation of the article I deleted, etc.) and really take issue with your comments there. I don't wish to start a lengthy argument there about a personal issue, hence I brought it here. You said that: "It was wrong for two closing admins to ignore all known policies about consensus, a consensus that had established between 130 editors overtime that all were against deletion, in two AfDs, the second one entirely illegitimate and invalid to begin with, and an insanely high number of polls for delete/merge/redirect. These closing admins did so because of simple per-above partisan counting, name throwing, and unsubstantiated vague claims (that were sufficiently and fundamentally debunked by a large number of people, editors and admins alike, again and again and again), as the deletion party obviously had no other way of excusing their votes and behavior. This applies to admins User:Keilana and User:Mackensen."

First, I did not ignore all known policies about consensus. I made a decision based on weighted arguments and what I felt was best for the encyclopedia. Just because I didn't agree with you and deleted something you wanted kept does not in essence make me a bad admin. Seriously, if you have a problem with my administrative actions, you're welcome to start a recall on me. I highly doubt it would succeed, but hey. You have every right to try. You even said that I should be desysopped in this statement : "a number of wrongdoing admins ought to be held acocuntable for this, probably by removing their admin status until they will have proven they have reformed and can be trusted to follow established process, consensus, policy, logic, and civility." I highly disagree that I have not followed established process etc. If I was interested in not following process, I would have deleted the freaking article through CSD or something, without discussion. I read your arguments, and found them to be with little weight and merit in the AFD, honestly. If you want to know the truth, that's it.

You also said "these admins did not simply let it happen, they actively supported all or part of this open, outright wrongdoing and uncivil, offensive name-calling, or tried to excuse it. This applies to User:Keilana, User:Mackensen, User:Jayron32, Guy and probaby [sic] many more." How does my closing AFD make me one who endorses incivility? Deleting the article was not an open, outright wrongdoing and I doubt it would be considered so by very many sane people. I stand by my decision, and fully support the deletion of any and all pages that contain a recreation of this content. I think that some of your allegations are, frankly, ridiculous. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TlatoSMD, this is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dreadstar † 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Tlato, you're wrong for "disruptive edits" while those who blatantly follow you (and I) around, attack us with personal slights and even name-calling, and bending of the truth don't even get a note. Wow. This note above is absolutely ridiculous, and I wanted to make a note of that in case anyone would think to off and block you based on that poor excuse for a threat (warning). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keilana, you saying that "as it was a recreation of the article I deleted, etc." speaks clear to me that you don't watch the DRV for Tlato's subpage at all. @pple complain 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Keilana. You had no problem to accept a new AfD with exactly the same nomination rationale as the first, and even closed it contrary to the first decision under the same circumstances and contrary to any consensus even in that one. At least now that you find your admin status threatened from several sides, you finally find anything to say other than monosyllabic "I disagree." explaining nothing in spite of how verbosely and sophisticatedly people are questioning your moves. "First, I did not ignore all known policies about consensus. I made a decision based on weighted arguments and what I felt was best for the encyclopedia." By that second sentence, you're entirely dodging around the issue mentioned in the first. Consensus is entirely about weighted arguments, and because the people opting for keep have always had better arguments including in the AfD you closed, they were nodded at by closing admins in 15-20 polls for delete/merge/redirect, and another AfD that had exactly the same nomination rationale and the same debate patterns along with keep and delete voting statistics. The second AfD was entirely illegitimate from the beginning because it had an identical nomination rationale, and it's even more wrong to follow exclusively your own personal feelings and call them "weighted arguments", as you're even freely admitting now, in spite of them conflicting with all known consensus policies on Wikipedia.

"I read your arguments, and found them to be with little weight and merit in the AFD, honestly." That's another example of how you're preferring your own feelings to established process, consensus, and other people's arguments. Otherwise there wouldn't be 130 people, editors and admins alike, disagreeing with you fundamentally, verbosely, and sophisticatedly, while all you could say to defend yourself has always come down to nothing else than "But I'm feeling that way!", entirely incapable of debating or refuting any reasoning thrown at you.

Dreadstar, in case you were warning me instead of Keilana, on her I was echoing admin @pple on her closure among other people, editors and admins, of the same opinion about her behavior. Please don't self-righteously kill the messenger. I'd suggest you really ought to look elsewhere than here for people you can tell to watch their step. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the warning was directed at you TlatoSMD. Dreadstar † 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My admin status is not "threatened from all sides". As demonstrated by the recent recall requests, the community apparently still has faith in me as an admin, less a few. As I saw it, the people !voting/voting/commenting on the side of "keep" had rationales contrary to policy. Policy trumps all, and one of the things I did was examine arguments to see if they were adherent to policy. I did factor in what I thought was best for the encyclopedia, that is the point of WP:IAR. My personal feelings about the article and the subject of the article were put aside while I determined consensus. I have no problem saying that I'm biased, but I do have the ability to temporarily sweep that bias away - while I'm determining consensus, or writing an article. Those are not places that should be biased.

I am perfectly capable of debating and refuting reasoning thrown at me. The article violated one of the core tenets that Wikipedia was founded on, and as the keep rationales hinged on the article following NPOV, they were, for the most part, invalid. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. So it appears that every admin who voted keep and admins who decided to overturn your closure, including reputable ones like User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, etc. are all so ignorant of policy that we tolerate something that "violated one of the core tenets that Wikipedia was founded on"? Very funny. @pple complain 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keilana, where did I say anything about "all sides"? Please read closely before commenting. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not, I apologize. You said "several sides". Not much of a difference, really... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List page?

Remember the chief complaint about the ACS page? Other than the non-existant "POV fork" issue (which was never justified), there was the "it only links to other pages and thus shouldn't exist". While that's a ridiculous assertion (as it was completely untrue), I wonder how those same people would react to this page I ran across today: School punishment. It is literally a list of "punishments" given in schools, every section sending the reader to a different page. There are six sections directing to pages and no references whatsoever. I'm almost tempted to PROD it and then, if there's opposition, AfD. But then, I'm an inclusionist, and (unlike Squeak and Co.) not a deletionist... I wonder how that would play out, though. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Great News?

have you seen this and this?

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

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

I'm sorry for having taken a break from Wikipedia after everything had become pretty heated lately. I don't understand; your second link yields an error message, the first indicates Squeak moved some stuff into an archive. And then I find that on his user talkpage, there's a large, brand-new "welcome" box by SSB. What's going on? --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak seems to be rambling about an alleged "death thread", one that surely wasn't in the material he removed from his userpage, at least not where you link me to. Is this the one "death threat" that was "exposed" on Wikisposure, which was that somebody said that anybody ever coming across him IRL should know that he "needs fixing" of an undisclosed kind? --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting though that he removed the link to his still intact Userpage talk archive where there seems no alleged "death threat" issue either other than regarding his flame-wars with User:Zapatancas and due to which Squeak, as we know, has been blocked for for one month at first, then when trying to sock around that block, was blocked for another month. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hours for blatant bad faith comments, harassment, and personal attacks after being warned. [8][9][10][11][12]. Dreadstar † 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... that's what you get for being RIGHT. I think the last comment is what really did it, since you very accurately illustrated the problem. It's a matter of "accept my POV or I'll label you a pedophile and send you to Wikisposure", and if anyone dares to challenge that, they get blocked. THAT is what is Bad Faith here. I am so sick and tired of all the name-calling and the illegitimate blocks and illegitimate deletions (contrary to consensus and deleted IAW WP:IAR???). There was no harrassment. There were no personal attacks. Quoting facts is no longer allowed on Wikipedia? Bad Faith... maybe, but remember that AGF is a guideline... and the bad faith started LONG BEFORE you had to defend yourself as I and SSB and others have had to do against those who accuse us and demean and "out" us for things that are wholly false.

And I'll probably be blocked for telling you that you are right.

More crusading? WP:STEAM is an amazing policy... seems to be the most used policy around here lately.

Best wishes. Remember you can edit your user talk page... do what I did on my bad blockm and make it incomprehensibly complex! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Doing so is likley to lead to an extended block on the basis of disruption and a protected user page. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am blocked right now? Doesn't seem that way, though I have no idea why. Still, I regard this is another instance where I must ask some people not to shoot the messenger. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. This is obviously handled differently than at the German Wikipedia where all "edit" buttons disappear for you everywhere, including on your talkpage. Again, I must advice to not shoot the messenger. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TlatoSMD may have been a bit out of line due to frustration, and used a few too many capitals, but a 48hr block seems excessive, especially considering that all the edits brought forth as evidence of misconduct were to one single comment. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking out the references given above, I get a block mostly for quoting and echoing others? I told you before when you were trying this a bit above Dreadstar, don't shot the messenger! --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't shoot the messenger, he applied wiki policy, which several of your edits violated by making personal attacks. You can make your point without doing that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have found it much more understandable, not really excusable but understandable, if I would've been blocked for using the rude word "lie" in one post after the one found objectionable, instead of for simply pointing out facts that many others had pointed out before. I regard this block a cry for help because I bundle up all existing complaints, thus my posts generally appear more substantial and thus challenging an in fact imaginary status quo, that is threatening illusions such as those that the second AfD might have been legitimate from the beginning or that its closure would have been entirely uncontroversial. This is what happens if you pick at people's beloved illusions. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see my block seems to just have been conveniently extended past the scheduled 5-day closure of the recent MfD over my private userpage. Where's my rationalization for that which I'm entitled to receive? Or have some people's standards already sunken that low that they're not even trying to excuse their behavior anymore? --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no extension in your block log. Perhaps you are autoblocked? ^Avruchtalk 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The message used to read "due to expire on Wednesday, 17:55" or something like that, now it suddenly reads "Thursday, 6:01". Does that not seem like an extension? Dreadstar, if you want to keep people more verbose and convincing from posting in ongoing polls, better do it right the first time around and block long enough on your first time, anything else just makes your motivations transparent and your actions vulnerable. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, running the anti-autoblock routine hinted at by Avruch above, I'm directing all complaints and compensation demands his way if this is gonna result in any inconvenience or damage whatsoever... --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I didn't check the math. It says blocked at 4:01, February 5th for 48 hours. That would be until 4:01 February 7th, wouldn't it? ^Avruchtalk 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, its sort of silly that the unblock declined message contains your IP. ^Avruchtalk 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, you can view your blocklog here [13] ^Avruchtalk 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

This [14] isn't acceptable. It's ok to disagree but not OK to make bad faith assumptions of other editor's motivations. Calling someone a liar is simply unparlimentary. Its only a short block (12 hours) but since you were blocked for personal attacks only a couple of days ago I can't let this go. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, now I have obviously been blocked for telling an admin that she was patently lying, even providing ample references that she was doing so. This is another pathetic cry for help of those who are unable to engage in rational, reasonable debate with convincing arguments, this time by the perpetrator User talk:Spartaz. Constantly the people of the popular opinion are allowed to insult, slander, and offend their opponents once again even in this newest DRV, but their victims are not even allowed to point out patent, open lies. As SSB or Allstarecho has pointed out, the Orwellian reign of some weird admins over this particular topic has gone so far that you're not even allowed anymore to even just say the nicks of these non-admin offenders anymore, otherwise you might get blocked, and these offenders are constantly allowed to beat anybody almost dead without anybody just turning their heads, but whenever any of them just stubs their toe, a whole rescue squad of weird admins come around to block the stone they have stubbed their toe on. I see with my block now this is even beginning to creep upon cases of actual admin offenders as well when admins behave unacceptably but if you dare so much as pointing it out, you're blocked. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to get some perspective here - you don't seem able to accept that people may have different views then you without actually being evil monsters. I'd suggest that you use the enforced break to go and do something else that won't cause you stress and upset you as much as this situation does. This might make dealing with this when you come back a little easier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm complaining about other people calling me and other editors and admins "evil monsters" and much, much worse without ever being held accountable for it one single time, not even counting the endless violations of 3RR, disruptive vandalism, and flaming edit warring with good, established admins that are all ignored just as well. It's even more revolting that so many good editors are getting blocked for these complaints about this unacceptable behavior. Wikipedia is entirely failing in dealing with the disruptive and flaming chaos caused by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this current MfD and resulting DRV directly traceable to Squeak, even though their like-minded accomplice Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally been perma-banned for it by now. All my warnings and blocks relate exclusively to trying to fix the mess these formerly 3, now 2, editors leave behind, and since Squeak has started violating my personal userpage they have been joined by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the latter now even demanding a one-month block for my exhausting efforts that a number of editors have thanked me for and expressed to highly value, including here on my talkpage. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought: The only word I used in what I was blocked for and that is not used every day in Wikipedia debates freely and liberally is obscene. Spartaz, please consider that when judging your own move. --TlatoSMD (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

P. S.: The more I look at Riana's posts in this DRV, the more I value the civility and honesty that was apparent in closing admin Keilana's unexplaining two-or-three-word posts that have led us into this now giant mess because of the inherent invalidity and illegitimacy in Keilana's entirely arbitrary mainspace decision. At least Keilana admitted that the only strong reason she had was WP:IAR. --TlatoSMD (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely tempted to either extend this block, protect the talk page, or both. Enough of your disruption and vague personal attacks at others (Riana, Guy, Spartaz, Squeakbox, etc.), already. Please give me a reason not to (ie. stop it). Daniel (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo this. All you need to do is stop throwing accusations around and start discussing the merits under policy. Your recent behaviour has been unacceptable and I can certainly see why Daniel would be tempted to extend your block. When your block expires you are welcome to challenge any point in the DRV but you must do it politely by discussing the contents of the posts not the poster. If you attack any other editors or mischaractarise their motives again then you cannot say that you have not been warned. No more disruption will be tolerated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have certainly noticed the trend on this topic that it's alright to vaguely mention that policies and plain rules of decent behavior and civility are being violated, but as soon as you start giving names you're threatened, intimated, and warned at best if you're part of the civil party with better arguments. The way I see it is that I have caught an admin patently lying and probably even worse, and now I'm facing the consequences. This is a farce, like anything else I've seen regarding issues of the so-called Cabal within the last three or four months, including AfDs, MfDs, and DRVs. Wikipedia is a great thing in general, but making this another mere agreement with what many established editors and admins have said before me, whenever you're trying to bring some sense to what the Cabal holds hostage, Wikipedia totally fails on every single one of its policies, not even holding accountable some neglectful admins that turn a blind eye towards vandalism, edit warring, insults, flaming, and offending other editors and even admins, and threaten anybody that complains. Sure, there are plenty of good admins protesting whenever you bring these things to their attention, but that's pretty much all, they only protest but they never do anything about it (one noble exception I've seen is User:@pple who recently opened a DRV). The three editors I have named have been warned countless times by admins of being blocked for their blatant flaming and edit-warring even on a number of admins determined to put a stop to their disruptive and offensive behavior, but unfortunately those warnings were never put to action. Only Pol has recently been held accountable for what all the three of them had been doing on articles, on talkpages, and in countless disruptive polls, AfDs, MfDs, and DRVs they started, and was perma-banned for it. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Again, I understand your frustration, but it would be best to tone down the accusatory tone, please. You may think, and rightly so, that some comments in the MfD (à la "supporters of this article are all pedos") were equally in breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but that's no reason to lose sight of those policies either.

You're definitely getting blocked over this if you don't lay low, and we don't want that to happen! The encyclopedia needs well-read, rational, dispassionate editors on this subject. Achieving NPOV when Western cultures at large have been in a continued state of moral panic about this for two decades is an uphill battle, and a difficult challenge for Wikipedia (one that a number of higher-ups are unwilling to tackle, I believe; Avruch's comment on SSBohio's talk page was regrettably realistic). Uphill battles can be won, but getting blocked is not going to help, that's for sure. SPOV is going to prevail once again. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh, too late? :-( Bikasuishin (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Go complain to the perpetrator User:Spartaz. Obviously we don't even need warnings anymore to block people out of the blue for pointing out unacceptable behavior, which is obviously a severe offense to do now. Guy himself is running around like a headless chicken to revert my alerts to all the people opposing his personal opinion. As I've said before, I'd have absolutely no problem as long as people, including admins, would all stick to honesty, decency, civility, logic, coherence, consensus, established policy, all that stuff which I see tremendously defied, violated, and just plainly spit at again and again and again in all these unpopular discussions. They're even severely lacking on equal accountability, us being beaten up by vile thugs gets us warned and/or blocked, but if these thugs ever stub their toe, some weird admins appear on the scene to block the stone they have stubbed their toe on just because they are rationalizing the popular opinion with nothing else than an argument of, " 'cos Ah say SO, ya worthless piece of sh*t!". --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

was your recent block not sufficient warning that making personal attacks isn't acceptable? Feel free to use the unblock template if you want to challenge this and have another admin review tis -{{unblock|your reasonhere}} Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bother to read my replies here and above, okay? The first time I was blocked for civilly repeating what many others were saying as well, the second time for demonstrating that an admin was lying. And you're still wondering why I'm using the term "some weird admins"? --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Get real. Equal accountability is not a reasonable expectation. There is a lot that the editor who SSBohio was forbidden to talk about can get away with and you can't, because he says what everybody wants to hear, and you say what everybody covers their ears not to hear. What he says sounds like common sense. What you say must be carefully backed up with dozens of reputable academic sources, and even then sounds dubious because the opposite POV is all over TV all day (and few editors browse through the humanities section of a university library on a regular basis...). You will always be held to a higher standard of conduct and editorial rigor than most wikipedians, and particularly the ones trying to break what you build. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tlato, I'm not looking to fight with you so please keep that in mind as you read this. Aside from my contact with you at the MfD I don't know you very well and have no personal feelings towards you. At the MfD you seemed to put forth reasonable arguments in a rational tone, but as the arguments wore on and culminated in the DRV, your comments became more rash. I understand how this happens, as I've been on the minority end of controversial debates in the past, and can personally attest to the ever-building frustration it can cause; I've also seen this happen about a billion times to other people around here who were in similar situations. You eventually feel like you have to "throw down" in order to get your point across because the "idiots" who disagree with you just can't get it through their heads just how "wrong" they are.

My best advice is to choose your battles and, as has been suggested already, take a break. Think about just how much value this particular page (the one deleted) has in the grand scheme of what you're trying to accomplish, and do a cost-benefit analysis. You seem more frustrated than you are in denial, so I think you can see that this particular battle won't turn out the way you want it to -- so the energy you're expending now just isn't worth it. Save it for something else.

I just have to respond to one more specific thing you said, about pointing out a liar. Firstly, there's a difference between demonstrating that someone lied, and calling them a liar outright. While the former can be done civilly, the latter is uncivil. Also: More often than not, proving that someone lied isn't helpful, as much as it might make you feel better. What's important is setting the present facts straight, and convincing people of what they really are. Demonstrating that someone lied about them is just combing over the past, which can only get you an apology at best, and usually not even that.

Hope you think about this. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:52, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have gone ahead and protected your talk page because of the continuing attacks and rhetoric. Frankly had you continued in that vein you would have had your block extended by someone. The protection expires at approximately the same time as the block does. Viridae^Talk 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block

I have indef blocked User:TlatoSMD and your admitted doppelganger User:Tlatosmd. The reasons are below:

1. Your are an WP:SPA account as shown by your contribs.
2. Your are disruptive as shown by your talk page and the DRVs, such as Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_9#User:Tlatosmd.2FAdult-child_sex_.28closed.29
3. That page had been deleted three times in the last two weeks, already reviewed once, this resubmission is disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation. You also vote canvassed, such as here
4. You were very uncivil to your blocking and reviewing admins, such as here where you said "whenever you're trying to bring some sense to what the Cabal holds hostage, Wikipedia totally fails on every single one of its policies, not even holding accountable some neglectful admins" and here where you said "the Orwellian reign of some weird admins over this particular topic has gone so far", and here
5. It was so bad your edit page was protected, but I've unprotected this one, but not the other one so you have a means to communicate.
6. I can only conclude that you are not here to be constructive

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this block. The diffs highlighted by Rlevse show TlatoSMD has been combative and hostile, reflecting what on review has been his attitude since he began editing this project. His disregard of community norms - personal attacks and incivility, canvassing and abuse of process - strongly suggest that TlatoSMD is not interested in participating collaboratively in this project. The narrow topic focus of his edits only reinforces that conclusion and this account is I think validly categorised as being here for a sole purpose in relation to the now deleted Adult child sex article and topics and editors closely related to it. WjBscribe 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, not by any stretch of the imagination is Tlato an SPA. Look at his whole edit history, including that of his doppelganger account User:Tlatosmd. His conduct today may not have been spotless, but an indef block for that is utterly disproportionate. I'm speechless. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also endorse the block. Tlato has been quite disruptive, and short blocks do not seem to have solved the problem. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse this block. It has become clear to me over the past month or so that this user has a rather narrow focus and is not going to let consensus change the way in which they conduct themselves on this issue. Orderinchaos 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this block. TlatoSMD is a disruptive, combative editor who has a long history of insulting other editors and engaging in tendentious editing. As for the WP:SPA, issue, this editor does seem to be focused on a single topic, with a majority of his edits and disruptive behavior involved with this single topic. Dreadstar † 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, etc etc, but why is SPA listed as a reason? -- Ned Scott 10:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI comments

(The following comments in small text have been moved to the ANI report on this situation. Please respond to this thread there, as not to necessitate unnecessary duplication of information. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

This While it's true that TlatoSMD can use a bit more tact in his commentary from time to time, indef blocking seems wildly inappropriate in this situation. His confrontational and "snappy" responses and exclamations are a result of what this individual perceives to be unrelenting attacks and POV-pushing by both regular editors and admins. Although he may have stepped out of line several times with his tone and heavy-handed words, I can't say I completely disagree with his interpretation of what has been happening on Wikipedia, especially in regards to PAW articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Wikipedia will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, to respond quickly to the reasons provided by Rlevse for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that TlatoSMD is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and previous accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Wikipedia procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Wikipedia. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this prior version of his user page. Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that TlatoSMD is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of TlatoSMD is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought from Jimbo. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been witness to this drama since its inception, I also agree with this block. I don't think it likely that TlatoSMD will magically become a constructive, non-disruptive presence. He is clearly intelligent and well read, and it is unfortunate that he could not more productively channel his abilities. In line with the comment from Jimbo - TlatoSMD's stridency and singular focus poisoned each interaction most of us have had with him over the last few weeks, and this outweighs in my mind any future contributions he could make while engaging in the same sort of behavior. I think it not unlikely that other members of the community will argue that more chances should have been given to TlatoSMD to moderate his commentary, but he's an adult and not at all new to Wikipedia (or de.Wikipedia) and significant long-term improvement seems farfetched. Avruchtalk 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Request for review of this posted at AN/I. Avruchtalk 02:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Poor Judgement

Tlato, I just wanted to give you encouragement for the moment until your ban is undone. I commented in that discussion at ANI. The allegations are ridiculous, but at the same time I would hope you learned from my experiences challenging the powerhouse of personal-attackers and not winning that fight. Even though we and others have endured biting, personal atacks, such does not "permit" the breeding of incivility (apparently). I know goes-around-comes-around, but to that end I have come to the conclusion that we must just wait for it to come around and not try to help it along.

The subsection heading, BTW, refers to the indef block and not to you. I wanted to make sure that was clear. The disruption of Wikipedia is not on your part nearly as much as it is on the part of those who platantly forego Wikipedia policy on their own whim and then force the issue with name-calling and subtle personal attacks. Your primary "crime"? Pointing it out.

Keep heart, Tlato, you should hopefully be back to editing soon. Below is the comments I made at the ANI.

• Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was the right thing to do. Good call and thank you.

Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD rightly challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.

When we are talking about a permanent ban on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is uncivil and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.

So, why is this user being banned? Because he is right. Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Wikipedia policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?

There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Of course not.

TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?

The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a community, have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and continue editing constructively.

Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

BTW, Tlato, I put in one of the advent calendar boxes to take out all the pointless block commentary that has no purpose other than to reiterate your ban status for all to see. Those type of comments should be made at the ANI and not here. Here's a place to talk TO YOU and not ABOUT you. Hang in there. I'm working a plan with a couple admins that may have you editing again soon provided you can reign yourself in (much as I had to do recently) a little bit. Okay? Best of luck to you. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

Unblock

I have unblocked you per my reasons here. A sincere advice for you: stay away from those stupid dramas and don't even try to create more, forget all the previous problems and focus on article writing. We still have our real life to spend time on and it is really a waste of time arguing over the nonsense. If you need deleted materials, leave me a message and it is done. And finally, I hope you won't let me down. @pple complain 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That was totally against consensus, at least six admins and a crat supported the block. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been redone. Mangojuice^talk 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse and Mangojuice. Dreadstar † 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My note before was terse; sorry about that. The situation is the following: @pple was acting on his own, unilaterally, without any adequate attempt at discussion with others. He raised his own action for consideration at ANI and many agreed the block should be reinstated. My personal opinion here -- I can tell you've been mightily upset that the AfD on Adult-child sex didn't go the way you wanted it to. Neither did the DRV, or the MFD on your own draft. You are entitled to your opinion that the community chose wrongly, but what's important is that you recognize that for better or for worse, the community has chosen something now and it's time to move on; Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to be unblocked you are going to have to at least promise to move on and stop continuing that dispute. Mangojuice^talk 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like TlatoSMD hasn't edited his talkpage since before the block was extended to indefinite (or thereabouts). Probably a point to keep in mind when addressing comments his way, or for that matter unblocking on his behalf. Avruch ^T 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My recent break and some thoughts

Alright everybody. I'm here to speak my mind on all this madness defying all reason and then disappear again for a few days to cool off. I just can't take all this self-righteous defiance of logic and fair play without being driven towards an immediate heart attack, that's why I'll take another few days off after this. I apologize in advance for stepping on anybody's toes.

I am appalled. I have taken a Wikipedia break for a few days to calm down and try to forgive a few people who have done wrong not only to myself but also to many others. And how do people thank me for my modest step back? I get perma-banned.

A number of the people commenting on the AN/I thread have been pointed out to me on Wikipedia as well as by off-Wikipedia means, and I have been suggested to take them to ArbCom repeatedly to finally make them behave. However, I never did so, for I am as interested in an as civil and friendly and un-intimidating atmosphere on Wikipedia as ever. If you will, I'm much too much of a coward than to come up with anything really original or being the first to bring anybody to official judgment, which makes any allegations of "disruption" against me even more unvalidated and unwarranted. How do people thank me for all that? They perma-ban me. Obviously, my developing leadership or heightened acceptance, as visible by a growing number of enthusiastic comments of support from other established users on my talkpage and elsewhere on Wikipedia to the extent that they highly value my contributions both in articles and in discussions, for being most well-educated and sourced, for trying to bring back civility, and for trying to establish middle-ground compromises that everybody could live with, but also voicing growing unrest and frustrations among a larger group of editors and admins concerning articles within the area of WP:PAW have made some people identify me as a threat to their personal status, and their personal opinions, so that I had to be neutralized to never be able to threaten their own securities again by my mere presence. The same contributions of mine which are now called "disruptive" have been considered most well-educated and sourced, trying to bring back civility, and trying to establish middle-ground compromises. So how come we obviously have a conflict here between those two sides of judging my contributions? And how come people describing the good things I did can do so in much more detail and with much more references than those calling the very same contributions "disruptive"?

The SPA allegation is, in itself, ridiculous, as a number of people have pointed out on my behalf. I have been active for years on the English Wikipedia, with hundreds of different subjects I have edited on before. But as we have seen before in many discussions and polls kicked off by other people than me (that I, curiously so, am now obviously being blamed for starting, although I did not), verifiability is ignored. To quote SSB, all established official Wikipedia policies about consensus are violated by counting clueless, uneducated, and information-less "noise" as "majority votes", even though such majorities are expressedly, verbatim not the official Wikipedia definition of consensus, most likely even to be avoided if almost all "votes" fail in all respects on verifiability, civility, reasonings, responding substantially to anything people confront them with, and even just plain content or sufficient rationales. I was one of those editors and admins to point out when all those policies were basically violated repeatedly, but I am the first to get perma-banned for it. That is, the first for now. The fact that people are attempting to paint this clueless noise as a "consensus" only goes to show their own obvious conflict of interest and resulting afflictions. And that's only putting it mildly.

I'm called "disruptive" and have been banned two times. All people calling me "disruptive", if they even bother to reference anything, reference occasions where I was among a number of other established editors trying to clean up a mess left behind by three editors I have named before. In fact, what has been brought up for "evidence" of me being an "SPA" was trying to remind people of civility and a number of official policies, or complaining if any violations of either took place, where I was only one of many to voice these frustrations. The difference however was that I showed more coherence and bothered to bundle up many complaints from many editors and admins, which might have made by posts more convincing than others. Both aspects are now called "disruption". With all due respect, if there had been no outright disruption and uncivil flaming in the first place, I would never have bothered to be as active over the last few weeks as I was. I happen to have a strong sense for logic and fair play which I tried to hold up, and I don't mind personal opinions or convictions, including on the matters I am now accused of being an "SPA" on, as can be seen in my alleged "canvassing" where I "canvassed" people of my own opinion as well as those of the opposing party, as long as I felt that logic, fair play, and official policy would be taken seriously and honored.

The first time I was blocked was because I'd bothered to collect a large number of complaints from people and bring those up, thereby strengthening "my" position by demonstrating large support for it. This got me blocked for "personal attack". It's another occasion where people have been lucky I'm not as litigious as to take things to ArbCom, as other people involved obviously did. SqueakBox would be one that could be named here.

The second time I got blocked I pointed out that an admin was lying. I didn't even mention her outright rude and snappy remarks insinuating in a lack of WP:AGF that everyday routines on Wikipedia would in this one single case be taking place because some people were somehow "unable to control their own malice". When pointing out the lack of any justification for both blocks, and describing in detail what behavior by whom with references ought to be considered reprehensible as according to a number of official policies instead of going after me, the messenger, even my talkpage got blocked. Both blocks were open, self-righteous incapability of refuting any of my sourced complaints. Instead of talking to me or even just listening, my mouth was held shut when people were obviously feeling too guilty themselves to even just reply directly to me any longer, so they silenced me to not remind them any longer by my proper reasonings of how they must have been feeling.

There certainly have been differences in people opposing me as the most vocal leader of a growing group unrest. User:Avruch might have been, in my opinion and in that of others, lacking in logic and attempting to consider other people's arguments, however I felt him to be more civil and obviously willing to apply WP:AGF in comparison to SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), lately increasingly also Guy, Viridae, and a few others which escape me in my current fury. Many people on the side of Avruch and Keilana, even though these particular two were mostly civil, said things to openly attack and insult people personally that I wouldn't even dare thinking, much less even write them down here. However when I use the tame word "lie" most warrantedly with references, I get perma-banned for it.

I find it especially odd that now Keilana is going after me and calling for an indef block simply because I'd bundled a number of literal, very negative quotes from her admin peers against her decision. I even acknowledged her refreshing civility that I have seldomly seen coming from most people on her side, and due to my strict civil, non-litigious policy never openly reported her to any authorities such as ArbCom even though several admins obviously insinuated such had to be done, so this is even more of a mystery to me.

Now, even some of those people trying to get me un-banned are insinuating I would have "overstepped my boundaries" somehow, somewhere. As much as I appreciate their good will to uphold reason and level-headedness against incredible odds, why are they saying that I should stop civilly pointing out rude personal attacks and blatant, open policy violations? Especially since many, if not most of my arguments are quotes from other established editors and admins who are not persecuted for it. I have been one of a number of people being kicked while we were lying on the ground with our guts coming out of our faces, by a group of three regular editor thugs while their behavior was mostly going unpunished, and because I have been somebody to more often say "Ow!" or complain than others, or trying to clean up their mess, I am now perma-banned by admins who obviously wish these violent, most uncivil people able to go on in their behavior. What is a mystery to me is that even some of the people trying to get me un-banned are saying I would have overstepped my boundaries by speaking up against this behavior, also in the name of us people being kicked but most of all in the name of civility, level-headedness, reasoning, calmness, verifiability, consensus, and a whole lot of other official Wikipedia policies. Are these supporters of mine afraid of being perma-banned themselves even just for attempting to stand up for me? From the madness I have seen, I wouldn't be surprised. The very fact I was blocked even just once only goes to show how little admins effectively care about enforcement of Wikipedia spirit and established policies on matters grouped within WP:PAW, which goes even more because most of what I said only echoed what many others were saying, especially those things that were quoted as excuses to block and finally ban me. Why do words and sentences of established editors and admins suddenly change their meanings just because I quote and refer to them? The offenders were self-righteously going against their most verbose and coherent critic, and my perma-ban is the result. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)