Commons and Pro-Pedophilia Options

[Ottava]

Sue,

On Commons, multiple admin are claiming that pedophiles do nothing wrong and should be allowed to edit. Kameraad Pjotr, one such admin, unblocked a pedophile (who admitted to being a pedophile before and edited multiple pages on multiple projects dealing with pedophilia in a pro-pedophilia manner). Many of his supporters claim that such is acceptable.

You have stated that we have a zero tolerance for pedophiles. In my work with Wikiversity, we determined that since we work with schools (both College and High Schools), we cannot allow pedophiles or the promotion of such material to interfere with us, as it would ruin our reputation. Commons is a project that connects to all others, and being linked to it is highly damaging to our objectives of having a safe and educational environment.

Can you and the WMF please take the appropriate measures to ensure that pedophiles are stopped and that admin who out of process unblock them and saying that "pedophiles do nothing wrong" no longer have the authority and ability to continue in this manner? Otherwise, Wikiversity will take yet another hit, as well as the other projects, if we are linked to such blatantly and unacceptable pro-pedophilia advocacy.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)




The link. I'm sick of those people.

[Moulton]

I'm sick of those people.

So you're sick too?

Wow.

Whole lotta sickness going 'round.

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue,

On Commons, multiple admin are claiming that pedophiles do nothing wrong and should be allowed to edit. Kameraad Pjotr, one such admin, unblocked a pedophile (who admitted to being a pedophile before and edited multiple pages on multiple projects dealing with pedophilia in a pro-pedophilia manner). Many of his supporters claim that such is acceptable.

You have stated that we have a zero tolerance for pedophiles. In my work with Wikiversity, we determined that since we work with schools (both College and High Schools), we cannot allow pedophiles or the promotion of such material to interfere with us, as it would ruin our reputation. Commons is a project that connects to all others, and being linked to it is highly damaging to our objectives of having a safe and educational environment.

Can you and the WMF please take the appropriate measures to ensure that pedophiles are stopped and that admin who out of process unblock them and saying that "pedophiles do nothing wrong" no longer have the authority and ability to continue in this manner? Otherwise, Wikiversity will take yet another hit, as well as the other projects, if we are linked to such blatantly and unacceptable pro-pedophilia advocacy.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)




The link. I'm sick of those people.

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

[tarantino]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

[Ottava]

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

It is sick that some people say such awful things here, like "Why can't we judge paedophiles, just like all the other users, by the quality of their contributions and not by their sexual orientation."

Yeah, heaven forbid we keep them from harassing our minors!!!

God damn those people make me sick. I hope Fox News and the rest reveal the sick stuff going on there and the outrageous positions gmaxwell is willing to defend as part of his anti WMF vendetta.

[Moulton]

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

Hrmm. Now it has become a "Cross-Wiki Issue." And I see that Gmaxwell blanked it on WV, whereupon you blocked him.

Ottava, you are an involved Custodian. You need to recuse yourself from using the tools when you have a personal conflict with another editor. What you are doing is bringing negative attention to Wikiversity and undermining what little reputation it still has a venue of responsible scholarly review.

It is sick that some people say such awful things here, like "Why can't we judge paedophiles, just like all the other users, by the quality of their contributions and not by their sexual orientation."

If the individual in question has violated a published policy, then whoever makes that allegation is obliged to prove it. Even if it's an open and shut case, a prosecutor still has to make the case, to demonstrate that whatever remedies are being imposed, they are carried out with diligent due process.

Yeah, heaven forbid we keep them from harassing our minors!!!

If I read you correctly, you are advocating punishing someone whom you only fear might possibly commit a future offense. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.

God damn those people make me sick. I hope Fox News and the rest reveal the sick stuff going on there and the outrageous positions gmaxwell is willing to defend as part of his anti WMF vendetta.

Perhaps you will make yourself avaiable to be interviewed by Jana Winter. Larry Sanger can probably put you in touch with her.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

Let's face it at that age one really understands very little about real life ... especially if one has spent the last 4 years of it investing one's time into Wiki online cult.

[EricBarbour]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

Let's face it at that age one really understands very little about real life ... especially if one has spent the last 4 years of it investing one's time into Wiki online cult.

The freaks who run the WMF love boys of his ilk.

Enthusiastic, ignorant, easy to manipulate. Plenty of energy for marathon ban-revert sessions.
Sorta like, well, you know.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

I'm not so sure that's the "definition of advocacy," but I have to admit, I'm a little alarmed by this admonition from Ms. Gardner, directed at you:

Ottava Rima, please don't make wild, overreaching accusations about other editors: it's not responsible. Thanks.

Putting aside the supreme irony of the WMF Executive Director saying that someone else is being "not responsible," do you think she's referring to Greg Maxwell and Kameraad Pjotr exclusively, or is she including Tyciol in that group too?

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

[Moulton]

The thing is, even if those "in the know" know with certainty that some individuals have a problematic agenda, you still have to respect the process, lest it become too easy and too tempting to pin a stigmatic label on anyone you dislike and bypass due process. If you are going to level an accusation that, if true, would justify a sanction, you damned well better prove it before a skeptical jury. Protecting due process is more important than nabbing a shady character with a worrisome agenda.

[GlassBeadGame]

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

I'm not so sure that's the "definition of advocacy," but I have to admit, I'm a little alarmed by this admonition from Ms. Gardner, directed at you:

Ottava Rima, please don't make wild, overreaching accusations about other editors: it's not responsible. Thanks.

Putting aside the supreme irony of the WMF Executive Director saying that someone else is being "not responsible," do you think she's referring to Greg Maxwell and Kameraad Pjotr exclusively, or is she including Tyciol in that group too?

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy. I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

[Somey]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy.

Well, absolutely - he has to be good for something, after all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So where are all the calm, rational, reasonable and responsible people on Commons who might object to things like the lolicon images, or unblocking Tyciol, or what-have-you? Are they all on vacation, or is it more like what I suspect, which is that once the free-culture, moral-relativism crowd take over (as they clearly have on Commons), people who might otherwise insist on doing the right thing just head for the hills, for fear of being implicated with pornographers and pedophiles, and maybe having their homes raided by the cops?

I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

She almost certainly knows Greg Maxwell personally, right? What with him being married to Kat "Mindspillage" Walsh, who's on the Board. As for Ottava, well... not likely he's going to be elected to the Board any time soon.

[Moulton]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny.

And therein lies the Wisdom of the Ages.

Not everyone subscribes to the Teachings of Moses, but one of his teachings is enshrined in the ninth of the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

OK, so let us Bear Witness (and let it be Accurate Witness).

But then what? What punishment shall we mete out?

You will note that the Ten Commandments do not prescribe any sanctions at all.

And that's the point.

It suffices to Bear Accurate Witness, no more, no less.

The point being that people generally behave when there are enough eyeballs on them.

And if an intervention is ever needed, it's to rescue the would-be victim, not to punish the would-be predator.

Punishing people generally tends to make them sicker.

Right, Jeff?

[Alison]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Moulton]

And so we have the Karpman Drama Model here in spades. Except that the roles are reversed from one Wiki (Yin) to another (Yang). Which is to say, we gots dramah up the YinYang.

[SB_Johnny]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Well, it might also be about what's happened here over the past several days as well. IIRC, in the past he's run into the britches breaches on commons and meta after sharpening up his arguments here.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cedric]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I can confirm he has indeed been reading here lately.

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/Guild_Navigator.jpg)

"I was not here. I did not say this."

[taiwopanfob]

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=41168820

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

The comment that inspired the above was, incredibly, even more inane.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=41166120

You make a joke? The title is from reputable artist Peter Klashorst himself, as far as I know. This cannot be changed without destructing the artist's approach. If you don't like it, don't use it. Ah, I see, all those Klashorst images are deleted at flickr and can't be checked again - we have to trust FlickreviewR bot, which confirmed all is ok - Smial

The "artist" (cough) in question runs a website:

http://www.bullshit-artist.com/

wherein the pornographic "bullshit" is kept behind an "18-plus" door. One might think that it's mere presence on Commons would itself be "destructing the artist's approach", but I fear to disturb the gathering of these titans...

[dogbiscuit]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy.

Well, absolutely - he has to be good for something, after all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So where are all the calm, rational, reasonable and responsible people on Commons who might object to things like the lolicon images, or unblocking Tyciol, or what-have-you? Are they all on vacation, or is it more like what I suspect, which is that once the free-culture, moral-relativism crowd take over (as they clearly have on Commons), people who might otherwise insist on doing the right thing just head for the hills, for fear of being implicated with pornographers and pedophiles, and maybe having their homes raided by the cops?

I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

She almost certainly knows Greg Maxwell personally, right? What with him being married to Kat "Mindspillage" Walsh, who's on the Board. As for Ottava, well... not likely he's going to be elected to the Board any time soon.

I would have thought the press would be singularly unimpressed by an open admission that she says one thing to the press while holding an entirely different opinion. Lawyering the words after the fact rarely looks good. Meanwhile, that WikiMirror world carries on where even the definition of "zero-tolerance" is up for debate, with GMaxwell more concerned over the "right" to contribute to commons than the issue that the whole project is being undermined by groups who are running a successful campaign of infiltration to promote and normalise illegal activities - using techniques that succeed exactly because the powers that be refuse to acknowledge common sense - or they are using some measure of common sense that relates approximately to the administrative maturity of the Wikimedia projects.

[Moulton]

A fish rots from the head down.

[Ottava]

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy, as both terms used to describe the -banning- of pedophiles is to make it seem like pedophilia is comparable to religious beliefs.

It is associating pedophilia with something other than what it is - an incurable illness that cannot be tolerated and need to be prevented in every possible way to ensure that they cannot get near children. Even the Supreme Court said that they are so horrible that they can be kept in jail beyond their sentence simply for the social good.

[Moulton]

One wonders if what JWSchmidt calls the "Wikipedia Disease" is curable.

[Somey]

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy...

He really said "fascist"? Yikes, that's dangerously close to "Godwin" territory. We know they have zero tolerance for that, at least.

Anyhoo, I'm just trying to be practical here. I suppose it could be said to be "pedophile advocacy" in the narrow context of Wikipedia, or even the interwebs in general, but he's not going to get arrested, tried and convicted in a US court of law purely on that basis. (Unfortunately! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) )

...as both terms used to describe the -banning- of pedophiles is to make it seem like pedophilia is comparable to religious beliefs.

Well, that's just extreme Randroid libertarianism for you - "we make our own morality" and so on. We do know that Mr. Maxwell is not a religious person; indeed he might even be described as "anti-religious" to some degree. (Remember he was directly involved, along with User:Cyde, in that whole business a few years ago with the spinning crucifix images in WP's Christian userboxes.) That was covered on WR here (though note that the thread was started by Hushthis, not Lir).

...an incurable illness...

I dunno about "incurable" - I mean, even if you completely disallow the notion that psychological counseling or drug therapies can reduce or eliminate the risk that a pedophile poses to a community, there's always chemical (or even surgical) castration, right? Admittedly those are real-world things, so I guess such a person could still do the whole advocacy thing on the internet, but "incurable" still seems a bit harsh.

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/Guild_Navigator.jpg)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/BrainbugStarShipTroopers.jpg)

I thought we might put up a gallery of sci-fi monsters from the id, for Ottava's delectation.

The Langoliers and pussymonsters are going to eat you, Ottava! Scamper, scamper!

.

[gmaxwheel]

Greg Maxwell here, rolling in with a clue-bat (or is it a silver hammer?). I would have posted this previously, but it took forever to get a working account. As a consequence I've had some time to think about what I would say, so you get the double length essay today.

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Prior to Ottava's allegations that I was a pedophila advocate I had not had _any_ involvement in this commons "pedophile blocking discussion" as I have been busy with other projects lately. I received a watch-list notice after Ottava was blocked again for incivility and harassment. I reviewed his recent contributions and reached the conclusion that the behaviour which had resulted in multiple prior blocks, a ban on English Wikipedia, moderation on foundation-l, etc. appeared to be getting worse, not better. Ottava does a disservice to his own views, and anyone else who happens to share them, as his unreasonable actions make them look unreasonable.

His latest feat involved some baseless slander, where he accused some commons user of being a supporter of pedophilia. Disagreement is a good thing, even strong, sternly worded disagreement is fine, and telling someone that their ideas are harmful and dangerous is a good thing if you believe it. But slandering people like that is not acceptable. Calling people who do not support pedophilia supporters weakens the allegation against real supporters, and it risks significant damage to the life of the victim and their families. It's not acceptable when Wikipedia's sloppy process lets it happen to random members of the public, and it's not acceptable when users do it to each other. This pattern of overstepping acceptable criticism into outright slander is among the behaviours which contributed to Ottava's ban on English Wikipedia. On this basis I felt that rama's block was appropriate.

In any case, and not particularly related to this specific incident, the lack of improvement in his interactions with others was sufficient evidence to me that further short term blocks were not going to be productive and would only waste more time and emotion from everyone involved. Accordingly, I increased the block to indefinite where it currently remains.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was enough to also get me branded... and now Ottava claims to be mass-mailing the media with evidence of my "promotion of pedophilia", smearing me here and on Wikiversity, etc.

Let me set the record straight. The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander. I believe that he knows that they are untrue, but he is saying them because he is angry at me and because he believes they will cause people to blindly support him. Stated bluntly and without equivocation: I do not support pedophiles or pedophilia, I believe these people and their practices are harmful and ill and ought to be rejected in the strongest way possible— not just on Wikipedia, but especially on Wikipedia. I have expressed my disapproval elsewhere, but these statements are being conveniently ignored here for the sake of smearing me.

I believe it would also be inaccurate to describe me as tolerant of paedophilia supporters— but tolerant is a relative term. As a straw man example, the criminally insane who support vigilante assaults on 'suspected' pedophiles might call me tolerant. I think you may be looking to the wrong person if you want to cast aspersions of tolerance: I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith. "Even when the church tries to forgive its sinners and guide them to back to what is right, the media attacks the pope and blames the church for not taking draconian measures. [...] We must think of the attacks as a test of our faith,"

Because it is too amusing to fail to mention: I could see one of the more extreme Wikipedia cultists making the same excuse against solid Wikipedia criticism, just substituting Wiki for Church, and Jimmy for the pope... and perhaps community as a substitute for faith.

As to the happening on commons, I've subsequently waded in and commented some... and made a personal commitment to make sure it gets sorted out. For the most part this discussion is a lot of sound and light signifying nothing— people are wasting a lot of energy splitting hairs over some trolling which could otherwise be easily and quietly resolved. Meanwhile, no doubt, some real advocates of pedophilia continue unrestrained.

As a wise person said to me earlier today, "Wikipedia doesn't have governance; it has community drama". If your goal is to see real reform in Wikipedia you should cast a critical eye at every dispute and decide if it is a real issue, just some political gamesmanship, or random petty drama... and avoid fanning the drama and those who would promote it, because it obstructs the evolution of real governance.

(Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama. The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will. When you get pulled into the drama you degrade your credibility as a legitimate critic)

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for your time,

This post has been edited by gmaxwheel:

[Milton Roe]

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for bringing to our attention how trollish Ottava Rima is over on WP. We were unaware of it. Let's face it-- most of us not only don't read Wikipedia, we don't even read the stuff here.

Ottava is an influential WR member because we're mostly practicing Catholics, and we would like to see the Pope get more respect. Pluss, Ottava can spell and a lot of the rest of us cant.

You should consider the lulz of having Ottava accuse everybody on WP of pedophilia, and everybody on WR also. Where is your sense of humor. Seriously.

Thank you for your time and bringing this to our attention. Your points have previously been considered here, but Mr. Ed (one of our members) finally convinced us the lulz was worth any misunderstanding.

Best,

WR

[gmaxwheel]

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy...

He really said "fascist"? Yikes, that's dangerously close to "Godwin" territory. We know they have zero tolerance for that, at least.

Ottava is again spreading lies to smear my character. Not only did I never say "fascist" or "witch craft", I haven't actually had a discussion about the blocking on pedophiles on IRC, so I wouldn't have had an opportunity to say those things even if I did believe them to be applicable.

As far as the Christian userbox goes... At least from my perspective the joke was that we were advocating that advocacy userboxes should have to be NPOV (Ben may have been more in it for the 'lulz' for all I know). The actual text of the userbox was a complete NPOV not at all critical bit of writing which I would stand by today.

At the time my perspective on the spinning cross the appeared at one point was just more sillyness — 'showing all sides of the issue'. This shows a more than a little bit of cultural ignorance and insensitivity: I was completely unaware that depicting the cross upside down is considered to be sacrilegious. It probably should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't, and I regretted any involvement I had in that part deeply once I was made aware of it. I hope the text of the box makes it clear that I wasn't attempting to offend people in that manner.

I think a contributing factor that makes Wikipedia more unmanagable is that people often take the wrong things seriously. E.g. harmless violation of some policy minutia, or some sillyness in the user pages is a BIG CRIME. But spreading some nasty libel, ignoring the law, facilitating predators, or whatever is often "someone elses problem" or just "no big deal". So I see nothing wrong with some sillyness here and there as it can help lend some perspective on what really matters.

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg Maxwell here, rolling in with a clue-bat. I would have posted this previously, but it took forever to get a working account. As a consequence I've had some time to think about what I would say, so you get the double length essay today.

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Prior to Ottava's allegations that I was a pedophila advocate I had not had _any_ involvement in this commons "pedophile blocking discussion" as I have been busy with other projects lately. I received a watch-list notice after Ottava was blocked again for incivility and harassment. I reviewed his recent contributions and reached the conclusion that the behaviour which had resulted in multiple prior blocks, a ban on English Wikipedia, moderation on foundation-l, etc. appeared to be getting worse, not better. Ottava does a disservice to his own views, and anyone else who happens to share them, as his unreasonable actions make them look unreasonable.

His latest feat involved some baseless slander, where he accused some commons user of being a supporter of pedophilia. Disagreement is a good thing, even strong, sternly worded disagreement is fine, and telling someone that their ideas are harmful and dangerous is a good thing if you believe it. But slandering people like that is not acceptable. Calling people who do not support pedophilia supporters weakens the allegation against real supporters, and it risks significant damage to the live of the victim and their families. It's not acceptable when Wikipedia's sloppy process lets it happen to random members of the public, and it's not acceptable when users do it to each other. This pattern of overstepping acceptable criticism into outright slander is among the behaviours which contributed to Ottava's ban on English Wikipedia. On this basis I felt that rama's block was appropriate.

In any case, and not particularly related to this specific incident, the lack of improvement in his interactions with others was sufficient evidence to me that further short term blocks were not going to be productive and would only waste more time and emotion from everyone involved. Accordingly, I increased the block to indefinite where it currently remains.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was enough to also get me branded... and now Ottava claims to be mass-mailing the media with evidence of my "promotion of pedophilia", smearing me here and on Wikiversity, etc.

Let me set the record straight. The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander. I believe that he knows that they are untrue, but he is saying them because he is angry at me and because he believes they will cause people to blindly support him. Stated bluntly and without equivocation: I do not support pedophiles or pedophilia, I believe these people and their practices are harmful and ill and ought to be rejected in the strongest way possible— not just on Wikipedia, but especially on Wikipedia. I have expressed my disapproval elsewhere, but these statements are being conveniently ignored here for the sake of smearing me.

I believe it would also be inaccurate to describe me as tolerant of paedophilia supporters— but that is a relative term. As a straw man example, the criminally insane who support vigilante assaults on 'suspected' pedophiles might call me tolerant. Considering Ottava's proud affiliations, I think you may be looking to the wrong person if you want to cast aspersions of tolerance. I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith. "Even when the church tries to forgive its sinners and guide them to back to what is right, the media attacks the pope and blames the church for not taking draconian measures. [...] We must think of the attacks as a test of our faith,"

Because it is too amusing to fail to mention: I could see one of the more extreme Wikipedia cultists making the same excuse against solid Wikipedia criticism, just substituting Wiki for Church, and Jimmy for the pope... and perhaps community as a substitute for faith.

As to the happening on commons, I've subsequently waded in and commented some... and made a personal commitment to make sure it gets sorted out. For the most part this discussion is a lot of sound and light signifying nothing— people are wasting a lot of energy splitting hairs over some trolling which could otherwise be easily and quietly resolved. Meanwhile, no doubt, some real advocates of pedophilia continue unrestrained.

As a wise person said to me earlier today, "Wikipedia doesn't have governance; it has community drama". If your goal is to see real reform in Wikipedia you should cast a critical eye at every dispute and decide if it is a real issue, just some political gamesmanship, or random petty drama... and avoid fanning the drama and those who would promote it, because it obstructs the evolution of real governance.

(Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama. The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will. When you get pulled into the drama you degrade your credibility as a legitimate critic)

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for your time,

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

[thekohser]

His latest feat involved some baseless slander...

The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander.

I prefer to call it "libel" when it's the written word, but I'm old school. These Internet kids tell me that libel and slander are interchangeable these days.

Greg, there's only room for one Greg on Wikipedia Review, so that's why we're letting Ottava get away with crazy text on here. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Ottava's lost touch with reality, and we find it amusing.

[gmaxwheel]

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

For how many years did you allow nathanr to hang around here, ... Andrew Morrow? Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

The situation with Tyciol will be taken care of, but at the same time I have not seen any cause to worry that things must be done _urgently_, so long that doing it urgently will probably have a worse outcome. He has not been using his account on commons to secretly farm inappropriate relationships with children, etc.

I'm not aware of this tolerance of which you speak, so it's hard to say that I have no problems with it. I would not be the first to call myself ignorant and that may be the case here, however, so feel free to clue me in via email. (gmaxwell- a t -gmail works fine).

[Ottava]

If a WR mod wants copies of the IRC chat, including where Gmaxwell used Kat Walsh's IRC ops (as he is not granted ops himself there according to others who are ops at IRC), I am happy to send the log.


To be honest, if Gmaxwell didn't want to defend pedophiles, then he shouldn't say a zero-tolerance policy is akin to a "witch hunt".

He not only said that on my user talk page but in the block log. This was a block that came over 24 hours after four other admin said that Pjotr was in the wrong, not I, and that Pjotr's warning was inappropriate. This was from a guy who didn't edit since he waged war against Jimbo to protect the porn on Commons, porn freely accessible to children, including "art" of children having sex with adults. This was from a guy who protected many of those people who blatantly wheel warred, blocked inappropriately, and outright harassed multiple users.

I also find it interesting that he and many of his friends who are so libertarian to think that pedophiles don't cause any harm and that zero-tolerance is fascist don't seem to have a problem with the zero-tolerance of Nazis in Germany. I guess only genocidal pedophiles deserve zero-tolerance and that the ones who only completely destroy the lives of a handful aren't quite to that level.

Gmaxwell has shown a complete disrespect to every single policy on Commons, to every possible ethical standard, aided the endangerment of thousands of child editors at the WMF, and abused Kat Walsh's ops multiple times in abuse on IRC and harassment on IRC. It seems that Gmaxwell wants to singlehandedly make the WMF the most reviled system on the whole of the internet and is getting away with every possible abuse.


Wikipedia Review, I give you your champion, the one who was born simply to hasten the day as many of you so badly desire!


If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Gmaxwell, quitely remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much destruction. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but hate, disruption, and abuse. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple legal fronts with its dangerous protection of inappropriate "artwork" and people who have no right even being near children.

[SB_Johnny]

Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

Hi Greg. We met once (and you seem like a nice guy), so I'll say what the other guys said in a way you don't have to puzzle through or parse:

1. Nobody here takes Ottava seriously.
2. He's accused quite a few of us of being pedos or pedo apologists (very much targeting me and at least one of the mods), so , uh Welcome to WR!
3. Ottava can be quite amusing once you realize he's a knucklehead, especially if you're sufficiently socially adept to realize that everyone else thinks he's an amusing knucklehead too.
4. If you hang out a bit, you'll find that WR is actually (and perhaps surprisingly) primarily populated by socially adept people who happen to enjoy giving people rope. Especially to knuckleheads. And we've got plenty of rope for everyone. Even enough for you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

SB_Johnny speaks the truth, Greg.

[gmaxwheel]

Hi Greg. We met once (and you seem like a nice guy), so I'll say what the other guys said in a way you don't have to puzzle through or parse:

1. Nobody here takes Ottava seriously.
2. He's accused quite a few of us of being pedos or pedo apologists (very much targeting me and at least one of the mods), so , uh Welcome to WR!
3. Ottava can be quite amusing once you realize he's a knucklehead, especially if you're sufficiently socially adept to realize that everyone else thinks he's an amusing knucklehead too.
4. If you hang out a bit, you'll find that WR is actually (and perhaps surprisingly) primarily populated by socially adept people who happen to enjoy giving people rope. Especially to knuckleheads. And we've got plenty of rope for everyone. Even enough for you! :lol:

Sure, I know that half of you are engaging in lunatic-bating (and a few of the other half are the lunatics). Not my cup of tea, or at least I really don't want it to be my cup of tea, which is one reason why I've never posted before. The worthlessness of some of the comments here won't be so clear to someone that gets sent a hyperlink here or ends up in via a google search. I at least wanted to be sure that everywhere these claims were made there was a firm rebuttal. That is all.

In any case, I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. :)

[Moulton]

I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, at least he's an honest admin when it comes to self-criticism.

[dogbiscuit]

Greg, the fundamental problem is that you and your associates go to great lengths to support deliberately vague policies based on some lunatic fringe of freedom.

In the real world, nobody would willingly associate with people who professed to be anti-social in whatever form. I see that you attempt to ingratiate yourself with the WikiMob, and see no problem with Sue Gardner telling the press who report to the rational world one thing, and tell the Wikipediots another, reinforcing their delusions.

Sue Garder's dissembling is highly inappropriate.

In the end, would Wikipedia's content be worse off without the contributions of, say, paedophiles? I struggle to see how you can say yes to that, knowing that they have been deliberately distorting content which we have documented. Are young people put at risk by the WMF refusing to put in place even the message, let alone mechanisms to support the principle, that Wikipedia is not a child grooming site.

So while I sympathise with you that you may have been the target for Ottava's bile, anyone who has read his outpourings knows not to give much weight to his opinion. However, he is right in principle, that Wikipedia has done worse than nothing about the potential for abuse. Wikipedia is a looking glass world where common sense is derided as delusional foolishness, and those who espouse activities that are unacceptable or unlawful in the real world are treated with undue dereference.

WR is not an irrational environment. Writers here are quire capable of recognising the sensible and the abusers within Wikipedia. If you associate yourself with Jimbo's "I see no ships" philosophy of problem handling, then you are due the criticism and approbation that being a mindless lackey to a bankrupt project deserves. Do you actually read what the nutters write about the policy? Simply put, they make no sense.

The solution is simple. Implement zero tolerance, not only of pedophiles, but anyone who seeks to make Wikipedia a game rather than a serious exercise. What is the worst that can happen? You might actually produce an encyclopedia. You can't do it because you are all barking mad, believing your own propaganda because you've been involved for so long. It is about time the WMF stopped ignoring what goes on in Wikipedia and grasped it is something that proper governance could solve*.


* Ok I am probably exaggerating, but trying wouldn't do any harm.

[GlassBeadGame]

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

For how many years did you allow nathanr to hang around here, ... Andrew Morrow? Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

The situation with Tyciol will be taken care of, but at the same time I have not seen any cause to worry that things must be done _urgently_, so long that doing it urgently will probably have a worse outcome. He has not been using his account on commons to secretly farm inappropriate relationships with children, etc.

I'm not aware of this tolerance of which you speak, so it's hard to say that I have no problems with it. I would not be the first to call myself ignorant and that may be the case here, however, so feel free to clue me in via email. (gmaxwell- a t -gmail works fine).

Try to understand this shithead: We are not the Big Fucking Encyclopedia. We do not encourage hundreds of thousands of children to collaborate with adults. We COPPA screen children. We actively discourage child participation. We are not the WR of Amorrow.

I think the outcome you risk from your lackadaisical (and tolerant) attitude towards pedophiles is the sexual exploitation of children. If I had a family member on the WMF B/T I would be very concerned about this. I not going to email you, asshole. Clean your own house.

[MZMcBride]

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Agreed. A lot of the regular posters and mods here really do view themselves as "freedom fighters" of a sort. A few comments over the past year have said as much explicitly (along the lines of "we're happy to be defending/protecting whatever"). There's a battle mentality, and we all know that all's fair in war, right? Of course the cost of taking the tactics that some of the people here take is the moral high ground, but I don't think these people were interested in that in the first place.

[SB_Johnny]

Sure, I know that half of you are engaging in lunatic-bating (and a few of the other half are the lunatics). Not my cup of tea, or at least I really don't want it to be my cup of tea, which is one reason why I've never posted before. The worthlessness of some of the comments here won't be so clear to someone that gets sent a hyperlink here or ends up in via a google search. I at least wanted to be sure that everywhere these claims were made there was a firm rebuttal. That is all.

In any case, I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, baiting the lunatics is a bit more honest than going through the endless cycles of AGF, BITE, and CIVIL in an attempt not to be sen as baiting the lunatics. And (as GBG notes above), WR is just a web forum (which people take a bit too seriously sometimes), not an encyclopedia (which people take waaay to seriously most of the time). WYSIWYG.

You do have a point about the actual point being not at all clear, of course. The "editorials" section (linked at the top) is a bit more coherent if you're really unsure what the point is.

Have fun abusing teh powerz. Pop on back when you hit the moment of clarity and wonder why you bother with all that nonsense. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Gmaxwell, quitely remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much destruction. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but hate, disruption, and abuse. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple legal fronts with its dangerous protection of inappropriate "artwork" and people who have no right even being near children.

Wow, Ottava, that's quite the overreaction to being blocked, don't you think?

[gmaxwheel]

Try to understand this shithead: We are not the Big Fucking Encyclopedia. We do not encourage hundreds of thousands of children to collaborate with adults. We COPPA screen children. We actively discourage child participation. We are not the WR of Amorrow.

I think the outcome you risk from your lackadaisical (and tolerant) attitude towards pedophiles is the sexual exploitation of children. If I had a family member on the WMF B/T I would be very concerned about this. I not going to email you, asshole. Clean your own house.

I must be better at this troll bating thing than I thought!

I have no love for permitting young children to edit Wikipedia, any kid that you can identify as such tends to be annoying (including the ones who happen to be 30 years old)... And I'm pretty sure that I've loudly advocated don't-ask-don't tell for children as the best reasonably implementable measure available.

If you actually think your silly "ASL?" web-form is anything but child-protection-theatre you've got your head further up your rear that I might have guessed.

And what else can I say— I accept your position that I'm a blind ignorant fool unable to see all the multitude of ways that Wikipedia is screwing up the world. But I don't want those bad things to happen, and if anyone is aware of specific examples of urgent danger I'm certainly willing to do what I can. To this you give me a fuck off and an order to clean my own house? Okay, but it seems that I'm already proven to be too stupid to do that on my own. One might get the impression that you're more interested in being pissed at anything Wikipedia related than actually preventing someone from coming to harm.

And tolerant again? I think I can state with equal confidence that you smell bad! So there.

Well, baiting the lunatics is a bit more honest than going through the endless cycles of AGF, BITE, and CIVIL in an attempt not to be sen as baiting the lunatics.

Well— I _try_ not to do that. For example, I don't believe I've ever given a temporary user block on commons. This is specifically because I would like to avoid the drama-cycle, if someone's sillyness was bad enough to deserve a block atll then I don't see why the block should ever automatically expire. (All of my IP blocks get expirations because IP ownership changes) I'll never stop being amazed at the people who keep trying after getting blocked ... the sane response is "what? you don't want my help? well fuck you and your wiki too!"

I'm sure I do often fail hard at at the anti-dramaz game, but I make a real attempt within the limits of my competence.

Have fun abusing teh powerz. Pop on back when you hit the moment of clarity and wonder why you bother with all that nonsense. :rolleyes:

There is a lot of nonsense, thus my low activity levels over the last couple years... but I don't see Wikipedia Review as escaping the nonsense, I think for many the people WR is just drama-afterlife. A good day is one where I don't think of Wikipedia at all. It would be hard to use Wikipedia Review without thinking about Wikipedia. These days I have a great many good days.

This post has been edited by gmaxwheel:

[GlassBeadGame]

Try to understand this shithead: We are not the Big Fucking Encyclopedia. We do not encourage hundreds of thousands of children to collaborate with adults. We COPPA screen children. We actively discourage child participation. We are not the WR of Amorrow.

I think the outcome you risk from your lackadaisical (and tolerant) attitude towards pedophiles is the sexual exploitation of children. If I had a family member on the WMF B/T I would be very concerned about this. I not going to email you, asshole. Clean your own house.

I must be better at this troll bating thing than I thought!

I have no love for permitting young children to edit Wikipedia, any kid that you can identify as such tends to be annoying (including the ones who happen to be 30 years old)... And I'm pretty sure that I've loudly advocated don't-ask-don't tell for children as the best reasonably implementable measure available.

If you actually think your silly "ASL?" web-form is anything but child-protection-theatre you've got your head further up your rear that I might have guessed.

And what else can I say— I accept your position that I'm a blind ignorant fool unable to see all the multitude of ways that Wikipedia is screwing up the world. But I don't want those bad things to happen, and if anyone is aware of specific examples of urgent danger I'm certainly willing to do what I can. To this you give me a fuck off and an order to clean my own house? Okay, but it seems that I'm already proven to be too stupid to do that on my own. One might get the impression that you're more interested in being pissed at anything Wikipedia related than actually preventing someone from coming to harm.

And tolerant again? I think I can state with equal confidence that you smell bad! So there.

You certainly seem like another witless Free Kulture idiot who are so used to an environment in which discussion is truncated with only people who agree with themselves that they have no sense of how far from mainstream society their views have strayed. If you need a clue read Jana Winters Fox News coverage of Wikipedia's pornography. Then read her coverage of the falsehood of Mr. Wales assertion that the Wikipedia Community was diligently addressing the problem. Then more recently her article on pedophile advocacy on Wikipedia and Sue Gardner assertion that WP has "zero tolerance" of pedophilia. Then read the irresponsible extreme libertarian views in defense of pedophile editing expressed on multiple discussion pages currently playing out on Commons right now. By the time you finish your homework there ought to be fresh news coverage concerning the falsehood of the assertion WP has "zero tolerance" of pedophilia. Maybe this will help you figure things out.

[Somey]

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia...

Actually, we claim to care deeply about the intentional damage of the irresponsible non-operating policies and non-policies of Wikipedia, yada yada yada.

Still, you seem like you're probably a fairly nice guy on a personal level. (Do you play golf at all?)

...but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Y'know, this is precisely the sort of problem we have when we register an old-guard type such as yourself. We were actually thinking of banning Ottava again anyway (we did it once before, and he's currently on a one-post-per-hour restriction FWIW), but now that you're saying things like this, we feel like we have to keep him unbanned just to show that we aren't "giving in to WP pressure tactics."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was enough to also get me branded... and now Ottava claims to be mass-mailing the media with evidence of my "promotion of pedophilia", smearing me here and on Wikiversity, etc.

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't do things like that. But didn't we move all that stuff to the tar pit already? (IOW, out of public view?) I mean, given that this is the internet and all, we're probably just going to have to move your refutation there too, so that the public doesn't get the idea that you're refuting slanderous allegations that don't exist.

I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith.

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't do any of that stuff either.

However, I personally believe you folks are missing the point a little bit when you chide us here at WR for not doing things that might lead us to be "seen as a respectable critics' forum," which would presumably include banning people like Ottava and various others. The point, really, is that Wikipedia exists in the real world as well as the internet world, has to somehow deal with the worst aspects of both, and can't really manage it - because it isn't really an "organization" in any real sense of the term and doesn't have the structure or the flexibility for that. (I'll admit, though, y'all seem to be doing a little better recently in areas related to nationalist/ethnic conflict and, of course, the Scientologists.)

As for us, we're amateur critics. To me, that's a key distinction; amateur encyclopedists deserve amateur critics. Professional critics have more important things to do, like clipping their toenails and watching re-runs of the The LeBron James Show on ESPN. (I hear the pros can even do both of those things at the same time!)

(Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama. The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will.

How do you define "bring down" and "kill" in this context? I hold that very few of us here are so unrealistic as to think Wikipedia will simply vanish someday, never to return. Even if it did, think of the scrapers!

As far as the Christian userbox goes... At least from my perspective the joke was that we were advocating that advocacy userboxes should have to be NPOV (Ben may have been more in it for the 'lulz' for all I know). The actual text of the userbox was a complete NPOV not at all critical bit of writing...

I'm afraid that's exceptionally disingenuous of you, to say the least.

At the time my perspective on the spinning cross the appeared at one point was just more sillyness — 'showing all sides of the issue'. This shows a more than a little bit of cultural ignorance and insensitivity: I was completely unaware that depicting the cross upside down is considered to be sacrilegious. It probably should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't, and I regretted any involvement I had in that part deeply once I was made aware of it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) I'm not religious either, but it was transparently obvious what your purpose and motivation was for that, er, prank, or whatever you prefer to call it. Still, such an admission of regret is the first step towards accepting and forgiving the many flaws and questionable beliefs you perceive in your Fellow Man.

I hope the text of the box makes it clear that I wasn't attempting to offend people in that manner.

It doesn't, I'm sorry to say. You'll just have to trust me on that one!

[EricBarbour]

There is a lot of nonsense, thus my low activity levels over the last couple years... but I don't see Wikipedia Review as escaping the nonsense, I think for many the people WR is just drama-afterlife. A good day is one where I don't think of Wikipedia at all. It would be hard to use Wikipedia Review without thinking about Wikipedia. These days I have a great many good days.

I'm so happy for you.

Why not just give up and let Wikipedia stew in its own juices, without you?

And if you must go back in there:
Are you going to do something about Tyciol or not?
Would you prefer that I posted the reasons why? No problem.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

...while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!).

I thought we decided that was called "haystacking"...? Where you suddenly realize that most of your contribs are about sex and children (or whatever), so you fill up your contribs list with pointless, trivial, seemingly innocuous nonsense-edits about things like what color clothes people are wearing, to make it harder for people find the occasional bit of nasty stuff (i.e., the "needle") buried in with the rest. Particularly if they're using those automated "wikichecker" scripts and such.

He's a squirrely one, I'll give him that! In our case, he tried to make us feel like we were doing little more than serving the purposes of a corrupt and evil system by denying him a platform, among other things. I suppose he'll make a fine political consultant someday, assuming he can avoid having people find out about his online activities.

[SB_Johnny]

Have fun abusing teh powerz. Pop on back when you hit the moment of clarity and wonder why you bother with all that nonsense. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

There is a lot of nonsense, thus my low activity levels over the last couple years... but I don't see Wikipedia Review as escaping the nonsense, I think for many the people WR is just drama-afterlife. A good day is one where I don't think of Wikipedia at all. It would be hard to use Wikipedia Review without thinking about Wikipedia. These days I have a great many good days.

Well, in the drama-afterlife, it's all just in good sport, as opposed to the seriouz bizniss in the WMF world. Well, almost all.

What's to be learned here (after reading for a bit and adjusting your internal nonsense filters to the right setting) is what went wrong on a project that the vast majority of us once thought was a good idea and a fun thing to be part of. The WMF itself might not be fixable (since it's still under the influence of Mr. Jimbo, who clearly has some serious issues and projects those issues onto "the community" on a regular basis), but it does seem to be going noticeably downhill these days, and something will replace it. Hopefully the next incarnation will be more active in protecting its userbase (particularly if some of its users are very young people).

[Moulton]

If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Gmaxwell, quietly remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much destruction. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but hate, disruption, and abuse. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple legal fronts with its dangerous protection of inappropriate "artwork" and people who have no right even being near children.

Wow, Ottava, that's quite the overreaction to being blocked, don't you think?

It also sounds remarkably close to what might be said of Ottava...

If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Ottava Rima, quietly remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much embarrassment. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but consternation, disruption, and civil disobedience. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple academic fronts with its dangerous rejection of "disobedient academics" and people who have no right even being near ranting politicians.

[taiwopanfob]

The situation with Tyciol will be taken care of,

Correction: the situation with Tyciol was taken care of until very recently.

but at the same time I have not seen any cause to worry that things must be done _urgently_, so long that doing it urgently will probably have a worse outcome. He has not been using his account on commons to secretly farm inappropriate relationships with children, etc.

Experiment: walk into a bank with a gun in hand.

Expected result: you will be ejected, it not arrested. The guards and/or police will not wait for you to do anything "inappropriate" with the gun ... your very presence with the weapon is itself the 'urgently' inappropriate act.

As far as anyone has been able to tell, your position is that one or more children have to suffer the attentions of these predators before you will act. This is so FUCKING STUPID, on so many levels, that I presently have little trouble with Ottava or anyone else calling you names here and there and anywhere they want. Boo hoo, sucks to be you.

I'm not aware of this tolerance of which you speak, so it's hard to say that I have no problems with it. I would not be the first to call myself ignorant and that may be the case here, however, so feel free to clue me in via email. (gmaxwell- a t -gmail works fine).

That your ilk un-banned a known pedophile is the "tolerance". Your failure to act -- personally and collectively -- is the "tolerance". Your unconscionable defense of said inaction, especially in the face of admitted ignorance, is the "tolerance".

Given your continued participation at the project, you have really only one sensible option: go back to your hive and re-nuke Tyciol into oblivion -- no debate necessary, as it already happened. Indicate that anyone who unbans him or similar in the future will be automatically blasted to wiki-bits, and, generally, sharpen the knife that is the WMF's board-level "zero tolerance for pedophiles" policy.

Of course, if you are uncomfortable with this kind of policy or it's enforcement, be glad you have at least the option to leave the project.

[Ottava]

What the @#$ is
I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith.

Anyone else find it interesting that he points out that, as if being what he considers "anti-gay marrage" as having any relationship to wanting zero tolerance to pedophiles?

Isn't that he same thing that Haiduc was pulling regarding Pederasty? And he was banned for being a pedophile advocate.



What reason would he even have for that? Is he trying to claim that pedophilia is a homosexual act? Or is he just throwing that in there because of his rabid anti religious view and wants to just be nasty any possible way he can?

And I never defended priests who have sex with adults or children. Their oath makes it clear that if they do stuff like that they will receive a nice place in hell. My statements were only ever to laypeople who have to deal with hatred by those like the above. You know, people who didn't actually do something to endanger the children. Those people have no responsibility for the abuse of children, but someone who fights against a zero tolerance of pedophiles does, be they Catholic or a Commons admin who uses a board member's status in bullying others.

[Cedric]

Greg Maxwell here, rolling in with a clue-bat (or is it a silver hammer?).

Aren't you supposed to wait until after the Pope has died to do that?

I have expressed my disapproval elsewhere, but these statements [Ottava's accusations against Greg Maxwell] are being conveniently ignored here for the sake of smearing me.

Oh dear. I'm afraid I will have to call "bullshit" on that one, Greg. In fact, members here have challenged his allegations in this very thread. Read it again.

Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama.

I could not agree more. For those of us critics who would prefer to see Wikipedia's demise, which includes myself, the best thing for it is to totally avoid participation in any Wikimedia project. The destruction of Wikipedia is your job, not mine, or more specifically, your and and the other Frei Kultur Kinder's job. You are doing far more to destroy Wikipedia's reputation than I ever could, and I thank you for that. Hasten The Day!™

The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will.

Dream on, wiki-boi. The fact that the inevitable consequences have not fully set in yet does not mean they never will. You apparently suffer from the common Frei Kultur Kinder misconception that potential outcomes that do not quickly appear will never appear (must be an effect of all that instant editing upon the brain). Nobody gets to escape Karma. Nobody.

When you get pulled into the drama you degrade your credibility as a legitimate critic[.]

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

This brings up another common Frei Kultur Kinder misconception: that the only way to be a "legitimate critic" of Wikipedia is to be a part of what amounts to a "Wikipedia Improvement Association." That has already been tried ("The WikBack"), and it failed miserably. The fact that its el maximo hefe was a humorless Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer certainly didn't help matters, but I do not think it is fair to say that is why it failed. The real reason lies in the fact it received, and was thoroughly saturated with, the same Frei Kultur Kinder ideology that dominates on Wikipedia. Accordingly, true critical voices calling for meaningful reform to preserve Wikipedia's longer term viability were quickly stifled. Being a much smaller website, its inevitable demise came far more quickly.

There is use in recording and analyzing the mistakes and dysfunctions of the Wikipedia project, particularly with an eye toward avoiding those same problems in the future with other projects. If I did not so believe, I would not be here. As for Wikipedia itself, I came to the conclusion three years ago that it is beyond hope and doomed to self-destruct. It is not that the website itself is inherently beyond reform, but rather that there are too many people having authority and influence that stand in the way of any meaningful reform.

[Ottava]

Edit note: I sent logs that I was given by others to the WR admin account so Somey et al can look over this chat and previous chats to see what Gmaxwell says when he thinks no one is paying attention/surrounded by supporters.

Gmaxwell blatantly posts lies here. I confronted him about it on IRC. Here is what was said:


01[18:56] <Ottava> "Many of his private messages have gone on in length about my parter. I have ops on the commons IRC channel purely through my own actions"
01[18:56] <Ottava> Gmaxwell, I have received from one member of this community that the above is false and that you have them only through using Mindspillage's account
01[18:57] <Ottava> and that was confirmed by two others who are associated with the IRC/Wiki connection, including ops on multiple rooms
01[18:57] <Ottava> These statements also included resentment in how you used her ops to op yourself
01[18:58] <Ottava> Gmaxwell: "I did not claim that Pjotr was defending against a "witch hunt". I claimed "(Pjotr) perceived to be an unjustified witch-hunt". This isn't mere word mincing."
01[18:58] <Ottava> Blocklog: "accusations that someone is an advocate for Foo simply because they won't join a witch-hunt against Foo. See talk for details"
01[18:58] <Ottava> There was nothing about Pjotr's perception there
01[18:58] <Ottava> It was clearly a statement saying that zero tolerance against Pedophiles was a witch hunt
01[18:59] <Ottava> Gmaxwell, why do you put forth such contradictory statements?
01[18:59] <Ottava> "Ottava's characterization of that pedo-catastrophe are completely accurate, but I don't think that is relevant to a discussion of Ottava's behaviour or the appropriateness of my actions. Other people expressed some similar sentiments"
01[18:59] <Ottava> Incorrect, multiple people -warned- those expressing "similar sentiment"
01[19:00] <Ottava> telling them flat out that they were being incivil and acting inappropriately
03[19:00] * ChanServ sets mode: +o esby
03[19:00] * esby sets mode: +b *!*no@*.pools.spcsdns.net
03[19:00] * You were kicked by esby (Ottava)



From my Commons User Talk page, which Gmaxwell will try to have removed as he has been pming multiple people begging for them to take action against me.

* "First, I did not initiate the most recent block against Ottava. I had been off working on other projects and my attention was brought to review Ottava's when I happened to check my watchlist notices"

Gmaxwell is a history with a long and negative interaction. His watchlisting my talk page and approaching, then indeffing when the first block was clearly inappropriate, is telling.

* "My only real 'negative' relationship with Ottava has been that I have raised concerns about his behaviour on commons in the past and was at that time also subject to wild attacks on my character. I had never interacted with him on any of the other Wikimedia projects."

Multiple attacks, accusations, countless bad mouthing of me on IRC and in PM on IRC, supporting others badmouthing me, violating just about every aspect of Freenode's TOS on the treatment of others, etc. These actions are all documented and I have had separate logs provided to me by various admin who witness the chat. These people have expressed disapproval of Gmaxwell's treatments before and now.

* "Ottava's invocation of my partner is confusing and unwelcome. Many of his private messages have gone on in length about my parter. I have ops on the commons IRC channel purely through my own actions"

It was confirmed by multiple IRC ops, including those who are involved with the Wiki/IRC relationship, that Gmaxwell ops himself in the Commons room by using Mindspillage's ops.

* "I asked the other active participants if anyone objected to the ban, and no one did."

Cary Bass begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting and others objected to the ban. I have logs provided by those objecting that support this. I was unbanned multiple times by those objecting to the banning and feeling it was an extreme overreach of power and abuse of IRC.

* "I was not made aware of Ottava's newspaper editorials until long after my actions concerning his behaviour and his retaliatory attacks on me."

He commented on them at Wikipedia Review with a snide attack suggesting that I tolerate Catholic priests being pedophiles. He then compared my stance on gay marriage with that towards pedophiles, as if there was a connection between homosexuals and pedophiles even though homosexuality is a sexual preference and pedophilia is rape and/or child endangerment.

* "I did not claim that Pjotr was defending against a "witch hunt". I claimed "(Pjotr) perceived to be an unjustified witch-hunt"."

My block log states: "Commons _WILL NOT_ tolerate accusations that someone is an advocate for Foo simply because they won't join a witch-hunt against Foo." There is no claim about "perceived" or anything. It is a statement that my zero tolerance towards pedophiles and pedophilia advocacy is a witch-hunt.

* "Other people expressed some similar sentiments — but far more effectively and without slander— and no one has even considered blocking them."

Jamesofur made it clear that when Pjotr threatened me that what he was doing was wrong and blockable. No one said that I should be blocked until 24 hours later after multiple admin sided against Pjotr.


If Gmaxwell clearly believed what he stated, then someone else would have blocked me at the time. 24 hours passing is a sign that no one actually believed there was a justification for such an action. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Kelly Martin]

Forum shopping, Ottava?

[gmaxwheel]

Correction: the situation with Tyciol was taken care of until very recently.

He spent a grand total of 5 days blocked until people noticed it. Then multiple people were holding the position that he should not be blocked. This doesn't fit my definition of solved.

Experiment: walk into a bank with a gun in hand.
Expected result: you will be ejected, it not arrested. The guards and/or police will not wait for you to do anything "inappropriate" with the gun ... your very presence with the weapon is itself the 'urgently' inappropriate act.

So, channelling Andrea Dworkin here, Because every man carries with him the weapon of rape— they should all be imprisoned?

There are plenty of excellent arguments for excluding pedophilia advocates, but what you've provided here is useless nutbaggery.

As far as anyone has been able to tell, your position is that one or more children have to suffer the attentions of these predators before you will act. This is so FUCKING STUPID, on so many levels, that I presently have little trouble with Ottava or anyone else calling you names here and there and anywhere they want. Boo hoo, sucks to be you.

There existed absolutely no evidence — and I would expected evidence to exist and be available to me— that this user has even attempted to use commons account to engage in interactions with children. Nor would it be possible for someone to use their account on commons in such a manner without detection while I was watching.

This does not mean that something didn't need to be done but it means that I can feel reasonably comfortable that there is no unusual danger in taking a couple extra days to ensure that whatever is done _sticks_.

That your ilk un-banned a known pedophile is the "tolerance". Your failure to act -- personally and collectively -- is the "tolerance". Your unconscionable defense of said inaction, especially in the face of admitted ignorance, is the "tolerance".

My ilk? Please. If we are to hold people responsible for the actions of everyone who has shared a website with them... Well, I think that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Given your continued participation at the project, you have really only one sensible option: go back to your hive and re-nuke Tyciol into oblivion -- no debate necessary, as it already happened. Indicate that anyone who unbans him or similar in the future will be automatically blasted to wiki-bits, and, generally, sharpen the knife that is the WMF's board-level "zero tolerance for pedophiles" policy.

blah blah blah. I actually had reblocked the account prior to seeing this drivel. Of course I did not "Indicate" any such things— I don't have the ability or the authority to carry out those kinds of threats.

Nor would they be rational. You reaction, regardless of its merits, comes off as hysterical and this kind of hysterical reaction raises concerns about the legitimacy of the judgement it inspires. People with working crazy-person detectors are wary to follow guidance pushed with a lot of over the top emotional language. These concerns provide leverage to someone trying to muddy the waters in what otherwise mostly be a cut and dry matter.

If I behaved in that manner many people would rightly conclude that I was responding based on pure emotion— that I hadn't carefully considered the facts— and that my actions might be questionable. They would rightfully question the validity of such an action and because there is just enough ambiguity here, — biased by their own concerns that they might be the next person accused of pedophilia— some might even conclude that I was in the wrong.

As just some person on WR you don't need to worry if you sound rationale and considered or not. But I do, because my ability to cause real change depends on people being able to trust my judgement.

I think it's more important to resolve the problem, protect the public (and our contributors), then to send an empty message about how much I hate pedophiles.

Cheers.

This post has been edited by gmaxwheel:

[Somey]

He spent a grand total of 5 days blocked until people noticed it. Then multiple people were holding the position that he should not be blocked. This doesn't fit my definition of solved.

Ah, but it does fit the standard definition of "not erring on the side of caution," eh?

So, channelling Andrea Dworkin here, Because every man carries with him the weapon of rape— they should all be imprisoned?

Sorry, but that's a terrible counter-analogy... I mean, I could almost see coming back with, "should we really ban people with gonads from the Sultan's harim because there's a slight chance one of them might seduce and impregnate one of his wives?" But of course they actually did do that very thing, for hundreds of years in fact.

There are plenty of excellent arguments for excluding pedophilia advocates, but what you've provided here is useless nutbaggery.

Well, when the calm, useful rationales don't get the job done either, where else can you go from there?

This does not mean that something didn't need to be done but it means that I can feel reasonably comfortable that there is no unusual danger in taking a couple extra days to ensure that whatever is done _sticks_.

I see what you mean by wanting to focus on individual incidents, but as I was reminded just recently, Wikipedia generally rejects the whole concept of reference-to-precedent as a tool for resolving complex or divisive issues - or any issues, for that matter. Bearing that in mind, Tyciol is just another example of what doesn't happen.

The real issue here isn't really whether or not Tyciol deserves to be banned from all WMF projects (I'm assuming most here would agree that he should be). The real issue is that he's considered to be a known pedophile, and Wikimedia users were debating his user status just days after the Executive Director made reference in a media report to a "zero tolerance policy." Which is to say she either didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) know what she's talking about, or was deliberately lying.

And to be frank, I would fully expect that Tyciol wouldn't involve himself in predatory activities on a WMF project - those sites are too valuable as propaganda tools for the "movement" for them to risk something like that.

My ilk? Please. If we are to hold people responsible for the actions of everyone who has shared a website with them... Well, I think that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Admittedly, I also cringe at the word "ilk."

blah blah blah. I actually had reblocked the account prior to seeing this drivel.

Good man! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

People with working crazy-person detectors are wary to follow guidance pushed with a lot of over the top emotional language...

"Crazy" is a subjective term. Moreover, there's such a thing as "monomania," where otherwise sane/rational people can be "crazy" over just one particular issue. Indeed, most people with diagnosable mental disturbances are capable of sounding rational on some, if not most, subjects for significant periods of time... Just look at me, for example! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

KIDDING!

[Moulton]

Well, when the calm, useful rationales don't get the job done either, where else can you go from there?

Um, to writing atrocious song parodies, posted on an obscure personal blog that no one actually reads?

[pietkuip]

Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!).

Tyciol is a troll, well-fed by ArbCom and by Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

This post has been edited by pietkuip:

[SB_Johnny]

So, channelling Andrea Dworkin here, Because every man carries with him the weapon of rape— they should all be imprisoned?

As just some person on WR you don't need to worry if you sound rationale and considered or not. But I do, because my ability to cause real change depends on people being able to trust my judgement.

[SB_Johnny]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

[SB_Johnny]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

Well, I saw it being discussed on the IRC channel, but more as a porn thing than as a child porn thing (I'm not sure the kids appreciate the difference). The image is a bit cutesy for my taste considering the subject matter.

[GlassBeadGame]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

Well, I saw it being discussed on the IRC channel, but more as a porn thing than as a child porn thing (I'm not sure the kids appreciate the difference). The image is a bit cutesy for my taste considering the subject matter.

Might be good to post some of the more revealing IRC discussions of porn. Not to over do it, but it would be good to document that there are other channels less visible in which "the community" pledged to guard against porn and pedophilia by Mr. Wales and Ms. Gardner show they like the stuff.

[Moulton]

Might be good to post some of the more revealing IRC discussions of porn. Not to over do it, but it would be good to document that there are other channels less visible in which "the community" pledged to guard against porn and pedophilia by Mr. Wales and Ms. Gardner show they like the stuff.

As everyone knows, Ottava was in the thick of the debate on Commons (where he was eventually blocked). You don't have to read very deep into the IRC logs that I have posted to get a flavor of how power politics operates in those channels. It's pretty much the same thing across the board in the interlocking English Wiki-projects.

[SB_Johnny]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

Well, I saw it being discussed on the IRC channel, but more as a porn thing than as a child porn thing (I'm not sure the kids appreciate the difference). The image is a bit cutesy for my taste considering the subject matter.

Might be good to post some of the more revealing IRC discussions of porn. Not to over do it, but it would be good to document that there are other channels less visible in which "the community" pledged to guard against porn and pedophilia by Mr. Wales and Ms. Gardner show they like the stuff.

Actually, what I saw (and I didn't read all that far down the scroll), was more along the lines of "why do we have to deal with this crap?" I wasn't familiar with the people talking though... I'm definitely not up to speed on who's who there anymore.

[EricBarbour]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

Puh-lease. It's crap. Belongs on Deviant Art, with all the other shitty imitations of anime art made by all the other 15-year-old Gundam fans.

(Not to mention the naked girls posing as Sailor Moon.....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[thekohser]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Is the male figure in that image wearing press-on fingernails?

I like how the revision history below the image shows how the picture was built, step by step, using the Wikimedia servers as artist's studio, rather than just uploading the finished product.

[carbuncle]

OT, but just for laughs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not that OT. Maybe even a pretty decent spot. Shows the celebration of porn (if only borderline "child" element) in great technical detail. Real connoisseur over there at Commons.

Well, I saw it being discussed on the IRC channel, but more as a porn thing than as a child porn thing (I'm not sure the kids appreciate the difference). The image is a bit cutesy for my taste considering the subject matter.

Actually not that off-topic at all. User:Niabot, the author of that image, has expressed his objection to the WMF board's study of objectionable content on Commons and had this to say about paedophilia on Jimbo's talk page:

Someone should say that it depends on the situation. There might be people that have this illness (''it is an illness''), don't try to hide it, but are able to control themselves, to not doing something stupid. The proclamation to be an pedophile isn't that bad at all, but as i said, it depends much on the situation and how this words are used. An general outing shouldn't lead to an block, but any attempt to blandish it, should. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Niabot is a 27 year old resident of Germany. He is obviously the ideal person to give presentations at technical schools. Apparently he was a hit with the young ladies.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[tarantino]

The real issue here isn't really whether or not Tyciol deserves to be banned from all WMF projects (I'm assuming most here would agree that he should be). The real issue is that he's considered to be a known pedophile, and Wikimedia users were debating his user status just days after the Executive Director made reference in a media report to a "zero tolerance policy." Which is to say she either didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) know what she's talking about, or was deliberately lying.

Lars Ã…ge Kamfjord says, while declining to globally block Tyciol -

Not done, locking isn't a way of globally banning people, and we have no policy allowing us to do so. He is obviously not a cross-wiki vandal with 15 000 edits on enwiki over 4 years before being blocked there. If the Office wants to do anything, that is up to them. Until such time as an office action is performed, or a global banning-policy is created, it's up to the communities on each wiki how they want to handle this. Laaknor 12:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-vandals have been globally banned, though, without any "Office" action.

[CharlotteWebb]

I like how the revision history below the image shows how the picture was built, step by step, using the Wikimedia servers as artist's studio, rather than just uploading the finished product.

Could be his interpretation of section 2257. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Moulton]

Enough is enough.

Non-vandals have been globally banned, though, without any "Office" action.

Well, I suppose it was "officious" action, rather than WMF:Office action.

of·fi·cious /əˈfiSHəs/ Adjective
1. Assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, esp. with regard to petty or trivial matters.
2. Intrusively enthusiastic in offering help or advice; interfering.

[thekohser]

Non-vandals have been globally banned, though, without any "Office" action.

You can say that again!

[Kelly Martin]

Non-vandals have been globally banned, though, without any "Office" action.

Any edict issued by Jimmy Wales, regardless of the degree of formality used, is an "office action", even if Jimmy explicitly says it's not one.

[Moulton]

I propose we undertake some Office Action Research.

[Ottava]

Non-vandals have been globally banned, though, without any "Office" action.

You can say that again!

Cough.

You bought an admin account to show how easy BLPs that aren't watchlisted are vandalised.

I would think that would make you a vandal.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Moulton]

How much do you want for yours, Jeff? I'm guessing one could buy it at fire sale prices.

[thekohser]

Cough.

You bought an admin account to show how easy BLPs that aren't watchlisted are vandalised.

I would think that would make you a vandal.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Is that what I did, Ottava? Do you have any reliable sources to back that up?

If so, post them to me in Private Message here, then I will transfer them over to Wikipedia Review, then I'll ask Abd to copy them into Wikipedia Review. From there, Moulton will post the evidence over to Wikiversity. This way, your attribution will remain intact.

[Moulton]

Cough.

You bought an admin account to show how easy BLPs that aren't watchlisted are vandalised.

I would think that would make you a vandal.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Is that what I did, Ottava? Do you have any reliable sources to back that up?

If so, post them to me in Private Message here, then I will transfer them over to Wikipedia Review, then I'll ask Abd to copy them into Wikipedia Review. From there, Moulton will post the evidence over to Wikiversity. This way, your attribution will remain intact.

Lessee... Charlotte Web reminds me that Ottava is blocked from using PM here, so maybe he can register at NetKnowledge, ask me and SB_Johnny to sponsor him there, and post his evidence there, in the Wikimedia Ethics Study Project.

Then, if Ottava can persuade Adam to unblock at least one of the 2^64 addresses he's currently blocking to ensure that no such communication ever takes place, I can handle the last part of the information diffusion process.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Abd]

I would think that would make you a vandal.

There are good vandals and bad vandals. Good vandals redecorate your place and you realize, when they are done, that it's better, even if you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that future. Bad vandals can even make you like them and think they are helping you, but they will surely wreck the place.

What kind are you, Ottava?

[Abd]

Then, if Ottava can persuade Adam to unblock at least one of the 2^64 addresses he's currently blocking to ensure that no such communication ever takes place, I can handle the last part of the information diffusion process.

We will shout from the bow, "Your days are numbered!"

Look, I strongly suspect that moving around Adambro will be trivial, the ground just has to be prepared, some weeds pulled up, etc. He'll even like it.

Wikis -- and some people -- are like silly putty. Try to move too quickly, they resist strongly. With soft, steady pressure, you can make them into just about anything.

That's actually both the good news and the bad news, because people who want to fulfill the original vision or the promises made aren't the only ones who can be patient.....

[Moulton]

So I saw that James Neill is working on a textbook project on Emotions and Motivation, which is what my NSF-funded research is on. But James doesn't know about any of that work, because Adam blocks communications among scholars.

So I go to WP to leave a note for James, and some kid named "Ohnoitsjaimie" erases it and blocks my Verizon IP (one of about 70,000 in the pool). So I switch IPs and put back my message to James.

I wonder if Jamie is gonna block 2^64 IPs on WP, too.

[EricBarbour]

So I go to WP to leave a note for James, and some kid named "Ohnoitsjaimie" erases it and blocks my Verizon IP (one of about 70,000 in the pool). So I switch IPs and put back my message to James.

Well, unless you're interested in the SpaceX company, EntrenchedBcrat (T-C-L-K-R-D) just got permablocked in error..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: