User talk:Radvo

My sandbox

Welcome to Wikipedia from S Marshall

Hi, Radvo. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Again, welcome! —S Marshall T/C 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi S Marshall,

  It's nice to be welcomed here. Thank you for your e-mail. This is the first I heard of the adopt-a-user program. Is this a good idea for me?

  TruthinWriting has proposed a new section that summarizes the 1998 Rind report in 600 words or so. His first version of the summary was completely redacted, and IMHO he was given a litany of poor reasons why. That redaction turned out well, however, because TruthinWriting wrote a better second version. He placed a copy of his second proposal on the TALK page. It would be great if people who visit this page would comment on it on the TALK page. Are you in a position to make a comment there to get some genuine conversation going? Do you think the average person on Wikipedia would understand the summary?

  It seems that the three people who have commented on the TALK page in the past week or so, are all from the Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd like to attract to this page professional psychologists, sexologists, and statisticians who might have more to offer. (But they may rather keep their distance from this topic.) Failing that, I'd like to figure out how to keep the energetic posters, like some who have posted there in the past, to keep working on improving this topic.

  Have you been on Wikipedia long? Do you have any tips or history of this topic to share with me that I wouldn't see in the archive?

  I would like to make this article better.

  Radvo (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Radvo, and welcome aboard once more!

  Adopt-a-user is completely optional. I'd recommend it for anyone who feels daunted or confused by Wikipedia, which can be a complicated place. However, if you feel comfortable here and confident of being able to take part without one-to-one support then it's not necessary at all.

  I'm afraid I have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic area in which you're editing. The reason I welcomed you is because at the time, I was keeping an eye on new users' contributions to Wikipedia—I do that from time to time, partly so that I can welcome anyone new, and partly as a way of quietly getting rid of vandalism when it's added (because vandals are blocked quickly, most vandalism comes from new accounts). I saw that you were editing productively, but that nobody had ever posted to your talk page, so I simply dropped by to say hi.

  I'm afraid I don't know anything about the Pedophilia Article Watch, but I do see that a user called Herostratus has posted to the talk page and in my experience he's sensible, helpful and approachable. I suggest directing your questions to him on his talk page!

  I've been around since mid-2006. What I mainly do is translate articles from foreign-language Wikipedias, but I've also written various articles about rural life, and history, in the United Kingdom.

  All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some unasked for advice

Hello, Radvo. I saw the note you left Herostratus and then took a look at what has been going on at the Rind et al. controversy article. I'd like to offer you a few tips. Firstly, you are rather guilty of writing walls of text. Please try and condense your points further. I see a lot of cases where are you are repeating points to add emphasis. Please try and keep it shorter - remember, everyone editing here is doing so on a voluntary basis and during their own free time, they may not have that much time to read through paragraph upon paragraph. That part of my advice can be ignored however, if you really feel that's how you must communicate. What can't be ignored so easily is your attitude. Things like "How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then?" aren't helpful at all. They are a waste of space. Please try to stick to the point and not be rude to other editors. Finally, the last message you left Herostratus also doesn't sit right. Suggesting that he is not "right for the work" or not working productively is impolite and completely unhelpful. Herostratus has been working in that area for a long time and is respected and careful editor. He is not the problem here. If you want the editors working in that area to work well with you, respect them. Respect that they might not have a lot of free time and respect that they've been here longer than you and know what they're doing. I really hope that you can stick around and become a valued editor here. Good luck, ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If your comments to Flyer22 were meant to be jokes that's fine, although you did admit elsewhere in the thread on the Rind et al. talkpage that you were annoyed. It's fine to be annoyed, and there are no rules against being sarcastic either, but it doesn't endear you too much to fellow editors. It seemed that Flyer22 didn't take kindly to something you said as she said "we won't work well together" but it's easily remedied.

Have you read the page about assuming good faith? It might help your interactions with Herostratus to remember that while you disagree with his edits, he's most likely not intending to destroy anyone's hard work, nor is he intending to be cavalier about it. He's just trying to keep Wikipedia up to a standard. His responses may seem short but I get the impression he might be working on a tight schedule.

I know Wikipedia can be a bit difficult to get used to. As for taking time over your edits, the way I do it is to write it in the editing box, then if the edit is not finished and I want to come back to it later, I copy and paste it into a word processor like MS Word or something and save it on my hard drive. There may be easier ways, but I don't know them, alas. Remember that once you have finished your edit, make sure before you add it into the article that it won't conflict with any edits that might have been made to the same text since you were last on Wikipedia. If other edits have been added, try and work yours in around it.

If you can't work things out with Herostratus, and I hope you can, there are dispute resolution steps you can take. I don't know if it really qualifies as a dispute right now, but if you feel it gets that way you can take it to places like the dispute resolution noticeboard where other experienced editors can take a look. I'd suggest leaving that as a last resort, and if you ever do go there, remember to keep everything concise and to the point; it makes it easier for an uninvolved editor to look over the situation and come to a conclusion. I hope all of this was helpful! ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I believe you if you say it's meant to be lighthearted. Remember though that on the internet, we can't convey tone properly so a lot of things go wooshing over people's heads. :P ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"redacting"

What are you talking about? I haven't touched that article in 2 weeks and even them I didn't redact anything. I also haven't been part of any discussion since 12/19. I don't have time for this article right now.Legitimus (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Preferences

To enable section editing, you must alter your preferences. Based on how my account is configured, you would log in, click "My preferences" at the top-right of the screen, select the "Editing" tab, and in the second section ("Advanced options") click the third dialogue box ("Enable section editing via [edit] links"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. Radvo (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI posting

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that this has been reported to arbcom per WP:CHILDPROTECT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Concerns

Hello Radvo. Let me introduce myself as a member of the Arbitration Committe on the English Wikipedia. Since it has become the subject of discussion, I thought it might help to explain further. You will, I am sure, have read WP:CHILDPROTECT, our policy relating to child protection issues. You will have noted that Wikipedia policy forbids editing which "advocate(s) inappropriate adult–child relationships." Linking to sites which advocate same, or belonging to organisations which advocate same, are regarded by the community as evidence of advocacy for such relationships. The same is not true of citing academic research which challenges current society norms or legislation, but in such a sensitive area, it must be true academic research. Pointing to the websites of advocacy organisations which happen to contain copies of such research, rather than citing the research itself, is likely to lead to trouble.

You might also like to read WP:EL, our policy on external links in general. You will see from it that linking to anything that is (or probably is) a copyright violation is forbidden. It also contains more general guidance on external links. While you will note that sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources may be linked to (Memory Alpha is a good example) or IMDB) are acceptable, still it is necessary to avoid any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, links to chat or discussion forums/groups, and links to advertising or self-promotional sites.

In general, if you are repeatedly reverted by other editors, it is well worth reviewing the reasons given, to see if there is a question of policy, and not just a dispute on content. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Elen,

I read your message. I assure you that I want to understand and follow Wikipedia policy. I have a special interest in editing at Rind et al. controversy, but to do this competently, a Wikipedia editor needs to have access to dozens of high quality scholarly articles. One of the big problems I find in working on this Wikipedia site is that editors who have no access to the scholarly articles and have not read the articles are nevertheless editing (simply from the abstracts) and putting words into the scholars mouth that reflect their "common sense" but are not in the full text of the articles. Editors need more access to the scholarly articles, and I am trying to solve this problem both for editors and for readers.

I have some points of clarification about linking to full text of scholarly articles on the TALK page that probably are a copyright violation. Would you or someone who deals with copyright problems please take a look, for example, at this website: [Rind et al. controversy at Slash the seats]. Please take a look at the footnotes on this webpage. This website accurately mirrors our Wikipedia's page, with updates everyday, but, unlike Wikipedia, it gives its readers access to the full text of some/many of the high quality scholarly articles that Wikipedia editors put in the footnotes. So this mirror page differs only in the footnote section, giving its readers much better access to the full text of many of the citations.

(1) May I link to this Slash the Seats page on our TALK page, so other editors on our topic can get access to the full text of many articles Wikipedia editors cite? Or would this be considered "contributing" to a copyright violation?

(2) The full text of the Rind et al article (about which this article is based) is posted to the Boston University site at http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56310.pdf. The full text of this article seems to be from a photocopy of the original article in the Psychological Bulletin. I assume it is genuine and not altered, because it is a photocopy, and the University would have no interest in altering the text for its students. Is this "probably" a copyright violation or does the University have a legal right to put this article on the web. If you think this link is legal, may the Wikipedia article link to this Boston College site on the main page? or the talk page for editor use?

(3) If much or all of an article can be located through a http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search Google scholar search, how do I determine whether I can link to that article from our Wikipedia article page, without contributing to copyright infringement? Should we assume that they are all copyright infringements? Would this assumption also apply to offering the full text of a scholarly article for a short time so all editors could read and discuss the scholarly article on the TALK page? BTW, Google finds references on the Ipce site in the Netherlands which the Wikipedia community regards as an advocacy site. IMHO, it is an information site, because it says it is an information site, though Wikipedia may incorrectly regard it as an advocacy site. I can live with what the community has decided, but it would be good if Wikipedia administration would make a list of all the banned advocacy sites. I would be sure to avoid all banned sites. Or why doesn't the Wikipedia web programmer just make these banned sites (like the Ipce site) impossible to link to. The Ipce has a huge collection of the full text of high quality scholarly articles directly related to the Rind et al. controversy. Much of the controversy was in the academic and scholarly community. Of course, I will fully accept your guidance on this, as dictated above, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts to you about this.

(4) Some of the links in the Wikipedia article's footnotes section on the Slash the seats mirror website offer its readers the full text of the articles in foreign libraries or links put on the web by college professors overseas who want the full text of the articles to be accessed by students in his/her class. Should I assume that these foreign libraries and professors overseas have a legal right to do this, or, for Wikipedia purposes, are these libraries and professors (many overseas) contributing to U.S. copyright infringement? May our Rind et al. article link to them, so Wikipedia readers (or just the editors on the TALK pages) can have access to the full text of the articles in the footnotes? Or get access to article we are considering adding to the footnotes?

Is there anything written up, besides the links you suggest above, to give me further guidance about copyright violation? If there are other knowledgeable persons who can answer any future questions better than you, would you please refer them to this page, or please give me the way to contact them. Thanks. Radvo (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not a site chooses to mirror content from Wikipedia is not relevant here. What is relevant is the part of my advice that you seem to be choosing to ignore. Linking to or pointing to sites that advocate sex with children will get you permanently turfed from Wikipedia. That's the problem here.

You can certainly point to an online copy not hosted by advocacy groups in order to demonstrate that an academic source does not support the way it is being used by another editor. If there is a concern expressed that it might be a copyvio, then just don't put the link in the citation you include in the article. By and large, if it's published on a university site, it's probably not a copyvio - just because journals and archives like JSTOR keep their copies behind paywalls, that doesn't necessarily prevent the author from republishing in other locations. You have to make a judgement call where other sites are concerned. But if you include urls of paedophile advocacy sites, trouble will follow.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

I have had to collapse your recent comment at Talk:Rind et al. controversy as it is not compatible with WP:TPG. Repeatedly posting long messages can have the effect of discouraging other editors from becoming involved in an issue, or even from finding out what the issue is. Accordingly, it is essential that messages should omit all superfluous observations (nothing about other editors, and nothing about other topics). Further, messages should be focused on actionable proposals to improve the article (for example, we all hope that better writers will become available, and there is no point in making that observation on an article talk page).

If you would like to ask about procedures used at Wikipedia, it is likely that a reply here would result in comments from other editors. Alternatively, general questions (not related to other editors) can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Sorry if I have been unclear, but your latest message at the article talk page was not an improvement on the first and I have removed it. Please show respect for other editors by trying to understand the standard procedures that apply at Wikipedia. There are hundreds of contentious articles where talk pages could be misused and monopolised by new editors who post long messages with unclear objectives. To avoid disruption, that cannot be allowed to occur. Posting images such as File:Mastodon color.jpg and File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpg cannot assist the development of the article. Comments on an article talk should very rarely refer to another editor, yet your message (diff) refers to several other editors, and yourself. Please do not do that. If you wish to discuss another editor's behavior, use the links I provided on the article talk page (WP:WQA or WP:ANI). An article talk page must focus on suggestions for improvements to the article without tendentiously long and hard to follow messages. If you have a question about Wikipedia's procedures, please reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to remove Radvo's message on the talk page, I'm also not going to read it. This means I am not going to contribute to the consensus regarding the main page until later, if at all. This means a bold, revert, discuss cycle, and possibly an edit war are pretty much inevitable. Radvo, by failing to take other people's suggestions you are making your life here more difficult and reducing the chance of your contributions standing over the long term. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq I am feeling bullied and harassed by the two of you, despite my full cooperation with all guidance. That is becoming more clear to me, Johnuniq, I rewrote my post with my actionable request, shortened it, and reposted it. I fully accepted your instructions, and you refuse to acknowledge that above. My second post was shorter and, in that way, it was a big improvement on the first. You refuse to acknowledge that in your message above. I took out most long reference to other editors, and that was a big improvement on the first. You refuse to acknowledge that in your message above. I had an actionable request, just as you asked me to offer. You refused to acknowledge that in your message above. I cooperated with you. You refused to acknowledge that in your message above. You did not "have to" collapse anything, and the reasons were not based on reasons that are permitted in the text at TALK page. I assume good faith until you give clear evidence that you are not responding to me in good faith, as described above. I am not feeling helped by you words and posts above. I am feeling harassed and bullied by your negativity, your criticism, and your refusal to acknowledge my improvements. I am not thriving under your supervision, despite my full cooperation. What are your going to do to contribute to the improvement of our interaction? I have taken this time to communicate with you, and you destroy me work for reasons that are unacceptable.

Johnuniq I am preparing the detail for help from WP:WQA and have read and am following the instructions to first try resolve the conflict on the TALK page. Your redaction has interfered with, not improved communication to resolve the problem. It is courteous for me to notify the people named in my complaint who they are. You redaction of my edit to the TALK page interfered with the courtesy I was extending. I was instructed at WQA to notify the editors of my complaint, that I will be using WP:WQA. Naming the editors is not a reason to redact my entire post. It was providing them a courtesy, as instructed. If you read my post, you knew that, yet you refused in your edit above to acknowledge that. I am adding you to my complaint against the other three for twice removing my edit (the long one and the improved shortened one) to the TALK page. And I enjoyed finding those two graphics and making my point. You twist what was a genuinely offered courtesy, and compliant with the WQA process into a reason to redact my post. The captions on the graphic definitely added to the message that we had to change how we were working at that Rind site site. It was a very effective message for people of good will. Your message to refused to acknowledge how the captions and the photos were directly related to effectiveness of my proposal. Your removing the entire post made no sense to me, and none of the reasons make sense. You redact my post for inserting photos? How is that justified in the regulations. I will put my complaint together, as time allows, at WP:WQA

The last post by WLU violates many of the instructions Johnuniq has given me and his critique of my own long edit to the TALK page. I was deeply offended by all his vulgarity in recent posts to the TALK page. I am expected to follow Wikpedia rules, and I want to do that. After all his documented vulgarity, I am being threatened with edit war? another editor will make my life here more difficult? This is unacceptable communications. Stop this!

Putting two photos into my TALK page posting, on the other hand, is effective, even funny. I feel offended by WLU's threat above. I am feeling the pattern continues. Where is the effort to contribute to Wikipedia in all this? We need outside intervention to improve interaction here.

I would like to bring the rest of this conversation to the TALK page, so this unacceptable language from editors can be part of my complaint to WP:WQA Please continue this there, Please live up to my expectation that you are acting in good faith. Thank you. Radvo (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as an uninvolved observer, can I just offer a few words of guidance on what I see as some of the problems with your commenting style?

• In the first paragraph of your comment above, you say "rewrote my post with my actionable request, shortened it, and reposted it", "My second post was shorter and, in that way, it was a big improvement on the first", and "I took out most long reference to other editors, and that was a big improvement on the first".
• Also, "you refuse to acknowledge that above", "You refuse to acknowledge that in your message above", "You refuse to acknowledge that in your message above", and "You refused to acknowledge that in your message above" (all referring to the same thing, that you shortened/improved your message).
• In the second paragraph, I see "It is courteous for me to notify the people named in my complaint who they are", "I was instructed at WQA to notify the editors of my complaint", "Naming the editors is not a reason to redact my entire post. It was providing them a courtesy, as instructed".

Endlessly repeating yourself pretty much guarantees that people will not read what you are writing - you are talking to intelligent people here who can understand plain English very well. You do not need to keep repeating yourself, or finding other ways to stress what you are trying to say - and you certainly don't need illustratively captioned images to convey simple concepts. Just say what you want to say ONCE, briefly, in plain English, and you'll greatly improve your chances of being listened to -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I do prefer to write one longer piece that a few shorter ones. I will look again at my text, before I "Save Page". In this particular case, I was deliberately repeating for emphasis to make my case. I really enjoy putting the photos together; I consider myself a learner at this, and enjoy the feedback. I hope to use the best of the photos, and captions, in the article itself someday. Radvo (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not threatening an edit war, I'm saying that if you post long comments, I won't read them and there is a good chance this will lead to an edit war. Instead, I offer these concrete suggestions:

• WP:BRD is a valid approach. Try making an edit to the main page you think is an improvement. If other editors disagree, they will revert, and explain their reason.
• Always base your edits to main pages on a direct summary or quote from a reliable source.
• As much as possible, reference policies and guidelines in your talk page posts. Policies and guidelines govern content and editors, representing broadly acceptable community consensus.
• Above all, be brief in your talk page posts. Suggest a specific edit, identify the source that verifies it, and if necessary, the policy or guideline that supports the change. However, my personal preference is to try out edits via WP:BRD first, it's much faster and saves a lot of unnecessary discussion.

Note that my vulgarity was because I was angry that you continued to link to sites advocating child rape. This is utterly unacceptable. Cease to link to these pages and the vulgarity also ceases. I rarely use profanity on wikipedia, but pro-pedophilia activity and sites are one of the few absolute limitations on wikipedia with zero-tolerance within the broader community - something I heartily endorse. Swearing got your attention, your latest posts on the talk pages didn't link to pro-pedophilia sites, so the issue is resolved and I have no doubt you will find my ongoing comments much more civil. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I do prefer to write one longer piece that a few shorter ones" - How about one short one? Simply taking out all the repetition would get you a lot of the way there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"One short one" is an obvious solution: cute. I am genuinely puzzled by the feedback from a number of well-meaning persons about repetitiveness. I will focus thought and effort on editing my own work before clicking on "Save page". Thanks. Radvo (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

It's generally considered polite to notify other editors if they are being discussed, see WP:NOTIFY. In addition, per WP:TALKNEW, normally one would not name another editor in section headings. I've notified Herostratus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these two WP: notices and for notifying Herostratus for me. Obviously, he should know I know and have reported it. I appreciate. Lots to learn.Radvo (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot to learn, which is why I keep giving advice. Honestly, you will have a much, much easier time if you take it - I'm not baiting or misleading you with any of it, I'm simply saying what I think you should do, give 5 years experience and 49,000 edits. You can also read this essay which may contain more general advice. If you want more helpful advice, I would either flat-out delete or heavily edit this posting. It is accusatory, assumes bad faith, demands the page ban of another editor, accuses other editors of conspiracy, claims we are working against consensus (when, since we consistently cite policies and sources, we are both contributing to the local consensus on the Rind page, and invoking the broader consensus of the community at large, vis. the policies and guidelines), brings in several utterly irrelevant issues (why does it matter that Hero used to be an administrator, or that he was involved with WP:PAW?) and generally doesn't make much sense. I predict your commentary will either be ignored, or you'll find our interpretation of things to be endorsed.

A point regarding conspiracies - if a whole bunch of people are working against you, there are two possible interpretations. One is conspiracy. The second is that a whole bunch of people independently think your actions are not helping wikipedia. I suggest the latter is the correct interpretation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal advise from UK. I read message.

Hi Attorney: Your message raised the issue of verbal abuse in a dramatic way. I felt your solidarity. "Piranhas" in your e-mail address was a funny touch. If we are verbally abused enough, we become like piranhas ourselves, ready to bite, and tear apart whoever is nearby. Find a way to better incorporate yourself within the legal system, if possible, and live well. Don't hurt those institutions that would be your friends. Thank you for reaching out to me with your unique offer to help. That was the best you could do from that distance. I assume you will check to see if I received your message. So here it is. Good luck with your law practice. Radvo (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have received an email from a known troll. I hope you don't mind, but I have mentioned this at ANI (permalink) because the email part is new. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedures

Please try a different approach at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. Apparently you are frustrated about something, and are expressing your thoughts on that page. However, the article in question is just one of many hundreds of contentious articles where teams of people bicker and edit war for months, and some thought will show that, for all its faults, Wikipedia must have procedures that eventually deal with disruption. Please be aware that while editors are absurdly tolerant of bad behavior (such as repeatedly posting messages that are not focused on actionable improvements to the article), eventually repercussions do occur. I am taking the time to write this in the hope that you will likewise take the time to listen to some of the advice that has been offered because the current activity is not going to succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am keeping a log of advise for new comers based on personal experience here as a new comer myself. This is the very beginning of a draft I plan to offer to new comers here, and this will be collaboratively revised in accordance to Wiki policies over time. Feel free to contribute to improve this welcome letter.

Moved this from Rind talk page

I have removed my draft "letter" as confrontational and inconsistent with Wikipedia spirit and policy. I made my point. Improving the climate for new users here can be accomplished in many ways. --Radvo (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I've removed this from the Rind talk page. It's completely unacceptable to post that kind of thing there - surely you must be aware of this. It's clear to me that the patience of your fellow editors is wearing thin in regards to your use of talk pages. You have been advised to read the talk page guidelines but I can only assume you have not done so. If you cannot use talk pages appropriately, your editing may be restricted in that area. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My answer to your request to restore this to the Rind talk page is 100% no. The very first thing on WP:TPG reads: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." The second sentence there is precisely what your post is, your views on a subject. Your post had absolutely no place there. This page is for editors to discuss the article and the article only, it's also a good place for our readers to come to see what work needs to be done/is being done on the article. To clarify further, your post was a) off-topic and therefore belonged in userspace and not article space and b) as Johnuniq said, of a battlefield mentality, therefore I believe I had acceptable grounds to move it to your talkpage (see the talk page guidelines). Please do not continue to speak about it on the Rind talk page. If you wanted other editor's opinion on something other than the Rind article itself you should ask elsewhere. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, nothing in your draft mentioned your personal feelings on the Rind study - it did, however, contain your personal feelings on the behaviour of Wikipedia editors. Among other things. I have brought up the issue at ANI and I hope some editors more seasoned and experienced than myself can untangle this mess. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some clarifications

I would like to clarify some matters regarding our discussions at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. I know that it is very hard for people new to Wikipedia to accept, but I am one of many editors who have no ill feelings, and who are very hard to offend, and who are trying hard to not offend others unduly. I added "unduly" because plain speaking is very important at Wikipedia—there is no point phrasing a comment so politely that it is misunderstood, and there is no point hiding a problem. Accordingly I know that some are offended by what I have done or written, but that outcome is never my intention—any offense is an unfortunate by-product of my agenda, namely to defend the encyclopedia. Please take me exactly as I appear, namely, an experienced editor who is trying to recommend certain procedures at the article talk page. As a working hypothesis, imagine that what I have written about Wikipedia's procedures is correct, and consider how the activity at the talk page looks to me: if I am correct, it follows that several responses to me have been inappropriate. Notice that at no stage have I attempted to obstruct you or your edits—if I am correct, all I have done is to recommend proper use of the talk page (and I have obstructed some of your comments). Try me out—instead of trying to teach me Wikipedia's policies, ask for advice if a procedural problem arises. I have no agenda other than trying to assist the encyclopedia.

I just looked at your contributions to see the areas in which you edit. That led me to look at User:Radvo/sandbox (permalink). I understand that you are just preparing some thoughts—that's fine. However, a better strategy at Wikipedia is to respond directly to issues—if I say X and Y, you might say that X is not correct because the wording of [something] contradicts it, and that Y indicates I have failed to read [something] because if I had I would know that so-and-so says Y is wrong. Direct and plain talk is how things progress.

There is one point from the sandbox that needs a response: you quoted me as saying "a trivial matter". Are you referring to my comment "It's a trivial issue, but FYI what I said was 100% accurate."? If so, I was saying that I wanted to raise a trivial issue, namely that my comment about edits by a sockpuppet was correct (and I continued with a brief explanation). I have never referred to anything connected with the article as "trivial". Again, the sooner the side issues are ignored (things like my "agenda", who said what, sockpuppets, and Wikipedia's policies), the sooner any content issues will be resolved. By the way, please never repeat the term "legally actionable" as that sets off alarm bells among onlookers—I can see what you are getting at (although why you don't just use plain language to say what you think should be changed eludes me), but many people might interpret such comments as conflicting with WP:NLT, and that is a hard rule which is strictly enforced (I will explain why, if you like, but please take my advice and don't say anything which could be misconstrued along legal lines). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, this is not good: "Dr. Rind and I do not agree that these matters are trivial, as they are legally actionable." (This is taken from here; this is a userpage sandbox so I'm not sure it has the same standing as something posted to an active page, but it probably does, at least technically.) Your exact meaning is not clear and I assume that you're just posturing, but one interpretation is that Dr Rind is preparing or at least considering legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation. Whether this is true or not and whether or not you are qualified to speak for Dr Rind in these matters I don't know, but you should probably be pretty careful about making statement like this, see WP:LEGALTHREAT, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry to inform you but I have made a thread at ANI about your recent post to the Rind talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy_and_user:_Radvo_consistently_failing_to_comply_with_talk_page_guidelines ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

test Radvo (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to a message on 'Rind et al. Controversy.'

Herostratus: You wrote at the Rind et al. Talk page:

“ "Just a couple points: we're not entirely rule-bound, no. It's a wiki not a court of law. ”

Thanks for writing that. That's especially comforting to hear from you. Since we are often (but not always) on the opposite sides, we also both like to go back to the Wikipedia rules and policies when we can't achieve our ends on the wiki in more reptilian ways. See: you were able to find some common ground with me. That's a gift, and I appreciate the gift. And there is probably more if we had more time together. A deep respect for the law makes things function better, but it's very important to build respect for law and order by (1) developing rules and policies that are sensitively and intelligently thought through and based on a scientific acknowledgement to the human experience, and (2) rules are consistently, wisely and compassionately enforced to establish order and build respect, without unnecessary pain and punishment for those at the very bottom of the heap, if possible.

You continued:

“ Also, I'd recommend going light on throwing around words such as fascism etc., and in particular I'd be careful when using legal-type language such as "violation of... copyright law" and so forth ”

I accept your recommendations, as you obviously know what works around here better than I do. I will drop the use of the word "Fascism" in whatever will follow from here. In point of fact, there is much to be feared about Fascism; hundreds of millions of people (including members of my extended family) have come to untimely ends because we have not developed ways to effectively deal with such powerful ideas. But this may not be the time and place to do much of that difficult work here. We do what we can to raise consciousness about the whiff of Fascism, and try to learn the limits of each situation and stay within its bounds. I usually don't have a lot of problem with working within the limits and boundaries, unless they are fuzzy in my mind. I usually find some space to wiggle around in within bounds. That doesn't mean that I don't test the actual limits just a little a bit in a new situation, until I get the hang of things.

As far as copyright law goes, I am genuinely confused by the complexity of, and widespread disregard for, that law as it applied to the Internet and the third world. I support the freedom of ideas and suspect the many violations of copyright law are ignored, especially where there is little monetary consideration, because many also believe that progress on the INTERNET requires free and speedy access to textual information. When push comes to shove, I am more concerned with resisting censorship than preventing the spread of ideas by insisting on my copyright. My loose talk about violating my right to my own writing was part of kitchen sink blustering. It works like this: throw out all the accusations that I know about, and watch later which ones stick, and ignore the ones that don't stick. If the charge of copyright violation doesn't stick, I won't use it because the use of accusations that don't stick actually weakens my case. In that way, your recommendation is helpful to me. I have removed that "draft letter" from my talk page as too provocative for these genteel circumstances, and it violates a number of Wikipedia policies that I actually like and respect. I never saw that Wikipedia is not a battleground text before. Obviously, the draft letter is still in my user page history, but it's removal by me conveys the idea that I want to withdraw the provocation to make peace. There is an art to this, and I have yet to learn what the limits here are. I like and am willing to work with this: "Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints." What are those "broad principles?" Maybe I will have the opportunity to work with you on finding them.

I was feeling lonely when User:Truthinwriting and User:Juice Leskinen did not return, as it is hard to edit here with no allies at all. It was, in part, the loneliness with no competent editors who have studied the scholarly literature that motivated me to write that draft letter. There is a strong British manners flavor to how Wikipedia is run that is foreign to someone like me who grew up in a large urban rust-belt city with many "minorities" who are dirt poor. People around here fight like cats and dogs to hang onto the little they have; genteel British manners are not a survival skill here. This is an encyclopedia, not a political revolution. I will not use the words "Fascism" and "violation of copyright law" in what follows next around here. Thanks again for your comment.

I have been blocked by a arbitration committee member, User:Casliber, who is a psychiatrist in Australia, and who edits a lot of articles about Australian fauna. Now I have done it: I'm being shipped off as an exhibit of strange fauna to a psychiatrist in Australia! :-) I am able to read everything on Wikipedia and can edit only here on my own talk page. The community discussion noticeboard was closed before I even knew about it; they were surely afraid of some wall of words from me and chose not to expose themselves and the public to any more of that, thank you! I sent Dr. User:Casliber a very short e-mail yesterday, but obviously have not had any response yet. I have been through things like this before. I am considered a high risk, high gain kind of person, and "groups" that have taken a chance on "letting me in" have all been very pleased with the final result of my work. My attitudes (but not necessarily my skills, for lack of practice) are better suited to the higher levels of the establishment than for street fights in the barrio. So far. And I understand, you can't win them all...

I assume you are quite knowledgeable about these arbitration matters, and how they do not always go the way we expect them to. Any thoughts about how I might best handle this? Are you (and user:Johnuniq) willing to put in a good word with User:Casliber on my behalf, so I can finish the job at Rind et al. Controversy I set out to do? I don't know what to expect and have no friends or allies here. The two allies I had are both now blocked.

Specifically, Dr. Rind implied that he would appreciate it I could find a way to do something to soften the part of Rind et al. Controversy that unnecessarily repeats detail of the Dr. Laura libel, she put out on the radio to millions of listeners 14 years ago. And also I am looking to find some verifiable source, as you suggested to me before, that contradicts the secondary source now used (the Dutch e-mail newsletter quoted by Salter?), to show that Dr. Rind did not in fact attend the December 1998 Rotterdam conference. Ironically, he says that he did not accept that Rotterdam speaker invitation for exactly the same reasons that Salter and Dallam want to associate him with "a pedophile conference" -- which it was not anyway. The Dec. 1998 Rotterdam conference was sponsored by a religion-based social work foundation that reached out to social outcasts (and to the social workers and other professionals who provided professional services for them). The motivation for the conference was based on Rev. Hnas Visser's deep liberation-type Christianity that is hard for those who are not deeply religious to understand. Dr. Rind told me his current neighbors have read Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy, and the part they say is most embarrassing is the part that says he accepted the invitation to the December 1998 Rotterdam "pedophile" conference. Otherwise they refer to him as some kind of "controversial" writer! His neighbors seem to subscribe to the genteel British-like manners that Wikipedia endorses. Dr. Rind kept his distance from that 1998 Rotterdam conference. Wikipedia unfairly still gets him shamed for having attended it anyway because some biased secondary source claims he was there! I got myself foolishly banned before I could correct that mistake for him. Any help you (and User:Johnuniq?) might offer in this regard will be much appreciated and might be quite appreciated by Dr. Rind, and will not be forgotten by me. Not knowing that I would be blocked, I wrote a nice, conciliatory message for User:Johnuniq on his talk page, but lost it all when I tried to save it and could not recover it. Apparently I was blocked during the very time I was writing that message and didn't know about the block until I tried to save the message to User:Johnuniq's TALK page. It was really quite good, one of my better letters. Too bad it was lost. Maybe it is best not to approach the persons who are more directly involved in the current dispute until it completely blows over.

BTW User:Johnuniq's statement at the Arbitration Message Board was honest and there were no lies or embellishments that I remember. I appreciate having to deal with Johnuniq's truth and not have to deny a bunch of lies. Dealing with his truthful statement before the Arbitration Committee makes my experience before the Committee less contaminated than if I had to deal with filthy lies.

If we have no further contact, I wish you all well here at Wikipedia. --Radvo (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, there's a lot of material here. Going to the main point, I'm not really sure about how to approach the ArbCom on this matter. You can email them, I think their email address is given at WP:ARBCOM. I have mixed feelings about all this. I wasn't much involved in your being blocked, am not usually a big fan of editors being blocked, and for my part was willing to see the end result of your approach to the Rind article play out before seeing where we stand. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of yours either, so I dunno.

I suspect that what's going in is this. There are a few points of view that, for good practical reasons, aren't well tolerated here. In particular, the ArbCom looks with gimlet eye on anything that smacks of advocating normalization of sex with children. (The meaning of "child" as applied to human beings is somewhat debatable, and it's an oversimplification to define it as just "non-adult" in the sense used for other species (not sexually mature enough to reproduce) because human society is uniquely complex and social (and legal) constructs enter into status definitions more than with other species.) There are good practical reasons for this based on various past experiences and political considerations and so forth. So on this subject (and, I think, only this subject) the ArbCom will act as a Star Chamber. My personal opinion is that this is all to the good. So my guess is that consideration of this entered into your being blocked, given the subject on which you have concentrated and your general take on it. Whether there's any appeal I don't know, but they ArbCom is (I think) made up mostly of reasonable, but very busy, people, so I can't really offer you any advice. (My personal opinion is that, taking everything together, we're better off without you (sorry), although I could be wrong about that, so I personally won't be supporting any appeal.)

As to Schlessinger, I don't think very highly of her, but she said what she said and it's part of the historical record. She's a pretty famous social commentator, and I think she's not a complete mountebank like Ann Coulter or Michael Savasge or whomever. So she has some standing (in terms of fame, not intellectual rigor) to have her opinions reported, I guess, and it was a valid part of the whole kerfluffle. So it is what it is, and Dr Rind will have to live that, I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest response. There is a difference between saying that the Rind et al. (1998) and Ulrich et al. (2005-6) meta-analyses show that the typical (average) CSA victim does not suffer long term, measurable harm, on the one hand, and on the other hand, advocating for the normalization and legalization of pedophilia (however that is defined). This confusion is spread by others who may have their own disclosed or not disclosed agenda. Raising the issue of "normalization" is raised by others, including a few Wikipedia editors like yourself here, not by Rind et al and Dr. Ulrich et al. Dr. Rind et al. never used the word "pedophilia". Dr. Rind published his meta-analysis for his sexological peers, in a professional journal that has a limited circulation to professionals of 6,000 copies. It was the Family Research Council, the NARTH, the Leadership Council(Dallam, Fink et al.), Dr. Luara, the various state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, the media, and Wikipedia that brought the study to the public's attention. If motivation is to be discussed, maybe Wikipedia editors could take a look to see what secondary sources have to say about the motivation of all these groups to take this research prematurely out of the scholarly community and grandstand the results of these calculations into the public discourse. Instead of censoring Dr. Laura's libel about what Dr. Rind's motives might have been, maybe the counter-response might be to speculate psycho-analytically on what Dr. Laura's and the many other groups' motives might be. We'll leave that to others to speculate about. it's not my expertise and style to publicly speculate on such things! And its not Wikipedia's way either: Wikipedia pushes Assume Good Faith... Dr. Laura did not assume good faith, and Wikipedia chooses to repeat her comments, maybe made in bad faith.

I see from the above that you have given the matter of the definition of the "child" a lot of thought. More important than defining the word "child" in some fixed way is to stabilize the definition so the meaning of the word does not shift in different usages. I recently thought the substitution of the phrase "child and adolescent" would do just fine for many usage instances.

My first impression of you was that you were not able to handle simple concepts and numbers: that extended discussion we had about "59" being the same as "several" and "a number of" gave me the impression that you were limited in your capacity to understand numbers, or you were "playing dumb" as part of some agenda. I have since that time looked at some of your other posts to Wikipeida over the years, and you are not limited in your capacity at all. From your December posts to Rind et al. Controversy, I got the idea that there was a conspiracy to deny Rind a fair summary of his research findings here. I thought I had to explain things in considerable detail so you might understand some of the complexity or just go away because you were in over your capacity to handle many of the concepts. Competence and doing the "homework" are essential to producing a good article here. We got through your resistance to TruthinWriting's posts okay after a while; the main article was much improved; and "59" now sits on the article page, as it should. I feel good about the considerable improvement of the article. All is well that ends much better than it was. Cheers and best wishes. Radvo (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)