The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Haiduc Siteban (Early 2010)
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32am
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:37:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

User:Haiduc is being discussed on WR right now as a pro-pedophilia account,
and after reviewing its contributions I'm inclined to agree that it may be a
problem. Has Haiduc ever been discussed on this list before?
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:46:58 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Steve Smith
<stevethearbitrator at gmail.com> wrote:
> User:Haiduc is being discussed on WR right now as a pro-pedophilia account,
> and after reviewing its contributions I'm inclined to agree that it may be a
> problem.? Has Haiduc ever been discussed on this list before?

Only briefly. Twice in the last year and a bit, from what I can tell.
May well have been mentioned prior to 20th December 2008 (approx date
I joined this mailing list).

He is mentioned on the arbwiki:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ophile_advocacy

"en:User:Haiduc -- Note: Haiduc does productive editing on a number of
sexuality-related topics. Mark Pellegrini 20:35, 20 February 2008
(UTC)"

That arbwiki page needs updating.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:02:20 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

That page is useful for raw facts, but I'm having a hard time gleaning much
in the way of insight as to why a given editor is either blocked or
unblocked. Raul says that Haiduc does good work, though I gather from our
recent banning of old what's-his-face that we don't exempt pro-pedophile
advocates from bans because they do good work elsewhere.

Absent a good reason not to, I think I'd support banning Haiduc.
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:16:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Steve Smith wrote:
> That page is useful for raw facts, but I'm having a hard time gleaning
> much in the way of insight as to why a given editor is either blocked
> or unblocked. Raul says that Haiduc does good work, though I gather
> from our recent banning of old what's-his-face that we don't exempt
> pro-pedophile advocates from bans because they do good work elsewhere.
>
> Absent a good reason not to, I think I'd support banning Haiduc.

There is a subtle, but damn critical, distinction to be made between
actual pedophilia and its advocacy and general editing in sexuality
topics that may include some edits critical towards areas related to the
subject. Beware moral panic! I haven't yet looked at the edits of that
editor, but sometimes I think we're prone to overinterpret.

-- Coren / Marc
----------


From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:51:38 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Not that I know of but he's always supporting anything in favor of LGBT
issues, such as the ongoing AFD and on article on the sexuality of
Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scout movement. A few years ago I ran
across Haiduc and he was one of those guys claiming there's a difference in
pedophilia and pederasty and that pederasty is okay.

R

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Steve Smith <email> wrote:
> User:Haiduc is being discussed on WR right now as a pro-pedophilia account,
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:19:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Actually, I remember throwing his name to the Arbcom-L list some time before
I was appointed to the Committee, when Nandesuka somehow or other brought
him to my attention. He was inserting poorly sourced information into
[[Historical pederastic relationships]] (sample
link)<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_relationships&action=historysubmit&diff=240113167&oldid=240048166>and
then had another battle at [[Nicolo Giraud]] - the latter of which
oddly
enough came to the attention of Ottava Rima for completely different reasons
(Ottava Rima was doing work on Byron, with whom Giraud was associated), and
is now a featured article.
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:58:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

The following is from Cas, I asked his professional opinion and pass on with
his permission:

"Okay...here are some important points to consider:

(1) as far as general dictionary and psychology definitions go -->
pedophilia = pederasty

(2) Some 'scholars' have proposed a variation where pederasty = something a
bit different, i.e. older man and younger boy/man from 12-20 or something
like it

(3)'Technically' this would be legal for relationships where the younger
party is over 16 years, however /ethically/ there are real issues of older
people in relationships with younger people WRT power differential and
trust. Hence focus in recent years on doctor/patient relationships or
teacher/pupil etc. even when age is not an issue.

(4) Pedophiles are highly deceitful and manipulative. They lure children
with guile and grooming. Alot of work goes into potraying the practice as
acceptable etc.

(5)Hence my view on the redefinition of pederasty as a form of grooming
taking place right here on wikipedia. i.e. I wouldn't trust them as far as I
could throw them and would watch closely (we talking about Haiduc right?)

(6)I tried to get the page on Historical Pederastic Relationships deleted
some time ago unsuccessfully, but many observations above are not understood
by the community at large. As /technically/ tehre is some 'scholarly' work
supporting (2) above (sigh)"

R
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:12:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Restating my support for a siteban.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> The following is from Cas, I asked his professional opinion and pass on
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:26:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Works for me. Others?

R
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:59:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Should we put this up for a motion?

R
----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:39:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I support a ban.

Fred
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:02:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Can someone with WR access give us an update on how the thread on Haiduc is
going?

R
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:58:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Thanks, Roger. I'll be recusing because of my prior admin actions with
respect to him, but I've suggested a link to his contribs, as shown with
Soxred's tool. If anyone had any questions about Haiduc's singular focus,
this info will refresh their memories:
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/inde...&wiki=wikipedia
*

*Anne

On 30 January 2010 15:43, Roger Davies <email>wrote:

>
> Motion now posted on arbwiki
>
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...on:_User:Haiduc
>
> Roger
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:04:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Thanks.

His recent contribs tells the same story.

Roger
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:02:58 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I support siteban, but we need to work out what the rule is. We
tacitly endorsed the continued editing of Davidwr last year. He came
to our awareness when he asked permission for topic socks, fearful
that editing on local topics could out him. We denied this
arrangement, so he continued under his previous deal. He was unblocked
a couple of years ago when Fred and FloNight negotiated his return
with an unspoken topic ban. Lately, we're not allowing a topic ban
solutions at all. Given the risk of grooming, I think this makes
sense.

The only distinguishing feature of Davidwr is that his pedo advocacy
was done on an edit-segregated account, and the Davidwr account was
swept up by Checkuser. Therefore, there's no apparent evidence of
advocacy, but does it make sense to rely on this odd fact? We should
either revisit his account, or accept it as a historical accident.

Frank
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:04:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

It's largely died down (and it's publicly viewable, at
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28343&st=0, for anybody who
doesn't mind visiting WR). The major topic of the thread is [[Sexuality of
Robert Baden-Powell<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell_>]],
with Haiduc's overall record being a side point.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> Can someone with WR access give us an update on how the thread on Haiduc
> is going?
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:01:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Now on ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...nts#User:Haiduc

Risker/Anne
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:12:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

We can nip this. There are already 9 votes to ban him. That's a majority.
Someone pls write and post.

R
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:14:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I just became # 10. Someone please do write, but take great care in writing
it. Suggest sending a draft to the list for review.

KL
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:15:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Just a reminder, I am recused on this. Sorry guys, but someone else will
have to write this.

Anne
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:44:54 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

What do we need to write? These things don't normally involve a public
announcement, do they?
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:47:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I would suggest that the wording on the motion itself be used as the block
notification on the talk page, including a statement that he may appeal
directly via email to arbcom (give the arbcom email address). Then the
motion message can be posted to the ANI thread with a link to the block log
entry.

Block is full, no talk page access, email disabled.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:59:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

For pedo stuff, they'll figure it out anyway. We could just block him and
say don't unblock without contacting arbcom. And stick a ban notice on this
page.

R
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:01:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I think that is the best course of action.

KL

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> For pedo stuff, they?ll figure it out anyway. We could just block him and
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:05:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Well, the reason I suggest what I do is because of the ANI thread. It needs
to be resolved in a way that satisfies the community, knowing that it was
something we had actually contemplated and were happy to take action on.
Better that an arb do it than another admin, remember the grief Ryan P. got
the last time he blocked under this provision.

Anne
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:10:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I'm happy to do the block, but I think we should do it soon in view of the
ANI thread. So far, Randy, KightLago, and I have all expressed a preference
for no official explanation. With Risker feeling otherwise. If I hear
nothing else in, say, an hour I'll go ahead with the route Randy suggested.
Thoughts?
----------

From: rlevse(Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:19:54 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Works for me. Post in the ANI thread too.

R
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:37:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Please don't let me hold this up. As long as there's something in the ANI
thread, we should be good. Block away.

Risker
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:40:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Suggested wording for the ANI thread? I'm thinking "Haiduc has been banned
by the Arbitration Committee." We don't normally give explanations for bans
decided off-wiki, and I'm not inclined to make an exception here.

Second choice suggestion: "Haiduc has been banned by the Arbitration
Committee for pedophile advocacy."
----------

From: rlevse(Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:41:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

First one, but it won't matter, everyone will know anyway.

R
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:49:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I think a simple statement that he has been banned and may contact the
committee to appeal and leave it at that is best. I think the second choice
is a bad idea. It is not smart to accuse anyone of pedophile advocacy on a
popular website.

KL
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:16:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

Done; I took the wording for the block log from the Offliner block, with the
addition of the arbcom-l address. MBisanz has closed the ANI thread and
tagged Haiduc's page, though those were both on his own initiative.
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:22:08 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I added him to WP:BANNED under banned by arbcom.

R
----------

From: (Slatersteven)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:52:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User Slatersteven

I will admit that I do not understand the permaban on user Haiduc for
promoting pederasty. I did not see any evidence produced for this claim
beyond one statement that seemed to be saying (to my mind) he did not
actually seek sex with boys and that was commendable. I can think of reasons
for a temporary ban (his confrontational attitude makes him difficult to
work with, but that is no different to user HiLo48). His accusations of
advocacy also should have resulted in a sanction (but again no different
from HiLo48). Whilst his creation (and actions on) Sexuality of Robert
Baden-Powell smacks of POV pushing and agenderism it does not seem to
contain any element of Perderastic advocacy, it ratehr seems to be a general
anti-BSA pro-homosexual stance.
----------

From: (Oldfool gmail)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:23:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Myself.

I have just discovered where the discussion for this ban resides. It is
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...nts#User:Haiduc

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Haiduc>I
contest the ban on the following grounds:

1. I was not informed of the discussion and was unable to present my point
of view.
2. LGBT history is a legitimate topic and pederasty is a legitimate
subtopic.
3. My actions and positions have been falsely represented, I never have
supported or defended illegal activities of any sort. In my six years
editing I have avoided pedophilia topics and debates as largely outside the
purview of LGBT history, which is the topic I edit.

Furthermore I request that the AfDs on the various articles I have edited be
suspended (see list on page indicated above) until I can properly
participate in the discussion and bring the matter to the attention of other
LGBT editors.

Haiduc
----------

From: (Oldfool gmail)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:33:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User Haiduc

I had the interesting surprise of discovering I had been banned
indefinitely, without notice or discussion. Would you like to elaborate a
bit on this event? I thought it was a hoax but maybe it's not. Please
explain.

Regards,

Haiduc
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:26:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

<list only>
Someone else needs to reply to this, at least with an acknowledgement of
receipt.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: SirFozzie (David Yellope)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:36:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Hi Haiduc:

We have received your email, and are currently discussing these issues. We
will contact you if we need to know more information, have questions or with
any decision the Committee comes to.

For the Committee,

David "SirFozzie" Yellope
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:45:32 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

<list only>

This needs a proper response, and I don't think putting it off is going to
make it any clearer what it should be. I propose something like:

"Dear Haiduc,

The Arbitration Committee decided to ban you independently of the discussion
on the administrators' noticeboard. A review of your contributions
convinced us that you were engaged in advocacy to legitimize sexual activity
involving minors. We have a longstanding policy of ending that advocacy
where we find it.

Our decision is final and is not subject to further discussion."
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:11:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Works for me.

Kirill
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Steve Smith <email>wrote:
> <list only>
>
> This needs a proper response, and I don't think putting it off is going to
----------

From: MailerDiablo (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:06:03 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Looks good to me as well.

Kenneth/MD
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:42:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Dear Haiduc,

The Arbitration Committee decided to ban you independently of the discussion
on the administrators' noticeboard. A review of your contributions
convinced us that you were engaged in advocacy to legitimize sexual activity
involving minors. We have a longstanding policy of ending that advocacy
where we find it.

Our decision is final and is not subject to further discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Steve Smith
----------

From: (Oldfool gmail)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:02:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Dear friends,

I have no problem with your decision. One thing I would request, that if any
articles in which I have invested a substantial amount of my time are
deleted, that they be made available to me in their entirety, history and
all. I am a historian publishing on LGBT topics and this material is
valuable for my work.

For the record, I have strived to report on pederastic topics evenhandedly,
the negative as well as the positive aspects, as the sources presented the
facts. I am not aware of having skewed these facts to paint a pretty
picture. However, in the present cultural climate, neutrality may well look
like advocacy. My own beliefs are that current laws are fine as they are,
and that young people should be protected from adult sexuality very much
like they are protected from underage driving. I think that people trying to
legalize sex with children are nuts.

It is always risky to try to read someone's mind when looking at that
person's writings, since there is no way to separate one's own mind from the
process. I wish you well in your Wikipedia work, I have no doubt that you
are doing the best you can and that you are sincere.

Regards,

Haiduc
----------

From: Coren (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:12:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

On 05/02/2010 5:02 AM, Oldfool wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I have no problem with your decision. One thing I would request, that
> if any articles in which I have invested a substantial amount of my
> time are deleted, that they be made available to me in their entirety,
> history and all. I am a historian publishing on LGBT topics and this
> material is valuable for my work.
>

They remain, of course, available to you (and to everyone else). You
can use the Special:Export tool to get an XML file containing the
articles with all its revision and history for your use (keeping in mind
that if others have contributed, it is derived work to which you are but
one party and any reuse must be properly attributed).

However, since you have released your contributions under the Creative
Commons License, Wikimedia retains the right to retain the articles and
they cannot be deleted on request outside of policy.

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:37:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 05/02/2010 5:02 AM, Oldfool wrote:
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> I have no problem with your decision. One thing I would request, that
>> if any articles in which ?I have invested a substantial amount of my
>> time are deleted, that they be made available to me in their entirety,
>> history and all. I am a historian publishing on LGBT topics and this
>> material is valuable for my work.
>
> They remain, of course, available to you (and to everyone else). ?You
> can use the Special:Export tool to get an XML file containing the
> articles with all its revision and history for your use (keeping in mind
> that if others have contributed, it is derived work to which you are but
> one party and any reuse must be properly attributed).
>
> However, since you have released your contributions under the Creative
> Commons License, Wikimedia retains the right to retain the articles and
> they cannot be deleted on request outside of policy.

He is asking for deleted revisions, not for the articles to be
deleted. It is a bit of silly request, as if the work was really
important to him, he would have kept copies himself offline. I suppose
the question here would be that if someone complained about an admin
giving someone copies of the history of these articles, would we do
anything?

On a different note, it would be a good idea, I think, to ask him for
a list of articles that he wants the history to. That might help
anyone wanting to see what articles have been affected, and might be
more efficient than going through his contribs (providing here a link
that Risker provided earlier):

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/inde...&wiki=wikipedia

15,333 edits over 5.5 years. 10,497 of them in the article namespace.

Sure, any list that he provides may match up with the top-edited
articles in that edit counter, but he might also point out some
smaller articles that only he has worked on.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Oldfool gmail)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:40:19 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

Thanks, but some of the articles are large and have thousands of revisions,
and I doubt I have the technical skill for exporting and viewing them
offsite. Can they be put into a personal space for viewing only, or exported
to another language version (French or Spanish or Italian would be ok) where
I am not banned so I can work on them there in a personal space?

Regards,

Haiduc
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:02:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Contesting banning of Haiduc

<list-only>

He's not getting it, is he? He is (even more clearly, from his
e-mails) using Wikipedia to publish his views. Which is not what
Wikipedia (any language version) is about. When he says "I am a
historian publishing on LGBT topics and this material is valuable for
my work", he should be doing that work, not editing Wikipedia.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:33:07 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User Slatersteven

S J Slater:

We can't obviously go into the detail of specific cases but broadly, per
longstanding precedent, decisions about users who display patterns of
editing behaviour that are consistent with pedophile advocacy are taken
off-wiki by the Arbitration Committee. The decision is not based on
specific "smoking gun"-type statements but on their long term editing
pattern and the extent to which they edit exclusively within the topic.
They are given an opportunity to respond and their response is taken
into account.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Roger Davies

S J Slater wrote:
>
> I will admit that I do not understand the permaban on user Haiduc for

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 2:51pm
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:02:58 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I support siteban, but we need to work out what the rule is. We
tacitly endorsed the continued editing of Davidwr last year. He came
to our awareness when he asked permission for topic socks, fearful
that editing on local topics could out him. We denied this
arrangement, so he continued under his previous deal. He was unblocked
a couple of years ago when Fred and FloNight negotiated his return
with an unspoken topic ban. Lately, we're not allowing a topic ban
solutions at all. Given the risk of grooming, I think this makes
sense.

The only distinguishing feature of Davidwr is that his pedo advocacy
was done on an edit-segregated account, and the Davidwr account was
swept up by Checkuser. Therefore, there's no apparent evidence of
advocacy, but does it make sense to rely on this odd fact? We should
either revisit his account, or accept it as a historical accident.

Frank

Oh good. ArbCom negotiated the return of a pro-pedophilia advocate, with a topic ban. I guess the topic ban didn't include creating articles on schools and camps for seriously ill children.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 8th July 2011, 4:02pm
Post #3


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE(Roger Davies)


We can't obviously go into the detail of specific cases but broadly, per
longstanding precedent, decisions about users who display patterns of
editing behaviour that are consistent with pedophile advocacy are taken
off-wiki by the Arbitration Committee. The decision is not based on
specific "smoking gun"-type statements but on their long term editing
pattern and the extent to which they edit exclusively within the topic.
They are given an opportunity to respond and their response is taken
into account.



Did I miss something, or is the bolded sentence a bald-faced lie in this case?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bielle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 4:36pm
Post #4


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon 27th Jun 2011, 6:07am
Member No.: 58,227

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32am) *



It is always risky to try to read someone's mind when looking at that
person's writings, since there is no way to separate one's own mind from the
process. I wish you well in your Wikipedia work, I have no doubt that you
are doing the best you can and that you are sincere.

Regards,

Haiduc
----------



Could anyone wrongly accused of (advocating) pedophile activity, even under a pseudonym, reply in this calm, detached manner, unless he had an agenda where staying visible somewhere on WM was essential? He exhibits the "there, there, child. One day, when you are a grown up, you will understand" patronizing tone of the true believer. Scary stuff!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 8th July 2011, 5:06pm
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE(Bielle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 4:36pm) *

QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32am) *



It is always risky to try to read someone's mind when looking at that
person's writings, since there is no way to separate one's own mind from the
process. I wish you well in your Wikipedia work, I have no doubt that you
are doing the best you can and that you are sincere.

Regards,

Haiduc
----------



Could anyone wrongly accused of (advocating) pedophile activity, even under a pseudonym, reply in this calm, detached manner, unless he had an agenda where staying visible somewhere on WM was essential? He exhibits the "there, there, child. One day, when you are a grown up, you will understand" patronizing tone of the true believer. Scary stuff!


To be honest, I couldn't see myself getting too worked up over a ban from Wikipedia, even on trumped-up pedophilia charges.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bielle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 5:14pm
Post #6


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon 27th Jun 2011, 6:07am
Member No.: 58,227

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 5:06pm) *



To be honest, I couldn't see myself getting too worked up over a ban from Wikipedia, even on trumped-up pedophilia charges.


Given the kinds of responses to bans we have seen already as posted by Malice, I think you'd be unusual in that. Even if the ban itself didn't upset you, the accusation might. YMMV

The word I meant to include above in describing Haiduc's response was "manipulative", a sort of "if you don't belong to this group of children who don't understand, then help me out here." It is quite powerful writing for all its apparent lack of emotion: "see how reasonable I am being".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Fri 8th July 2011, 5:55pm
Post #7


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 4:02pm) *

QUOTE(Roger Davies)


We can't obviously go into the detail of specific cases but broadly, per
longstanding precedent, decisions about users who display patterns of
editing behaviour that are consistent with pedophile advocacy are taken
off-wiki by the Arbitration Committee. The decision is not based on
specific "smoking gun"-type statements but on their long term editing
pattern and the extent to which they edit exclusively within the topic.
They are given an opportunity to respond and their response is taken
into account.



Did I miss something, or is the bolded sentence a bald-faced lie in this case?

Haiduc was given a chance to respond, and his response was considered. They just gave it very, very, very, very little weight.

But that's fine with me, because anyone promoting pedophilia/pederasty needs to gtfo.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 8th July 2011, 6:21pm
Post #8


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 8th July 2011, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 4:02pm) *

QUOTE(Roger Davies)


We can't obviously go into the detail of specific cases but broadly, per
longstanding precedent, decisions about users who display patterns of
editing behaviour that are consistent with pedophile advocacy are taken
off-wiki by the Arbitration Committee. The decision is not based on
specific "smoking gun"-type statements but on their long term editing
pattern and the extent to which they edit exclusively within the topic.
They are given an opportunity to respond and their response is taken
into account.



Did I miss something, or is the bolded sentence a bald-faced lie in this case?

Haiduc was given a chance to respond, and his response was considered. They just gave it very, very, very, very little weight.

But that's fine with me, because anyone promoting pedophilia/pederasty needs to gtfo.


Nah, in this case I'm going to toss my lot in with the more radical elements at WP:CHILD, and say that "thoughtcrime" alone is a piss-poor reason to ban somebody.

If you're interested in a taboo subject and edit/"advocate" in that area, fine by me. (It's amazing how quickly "advocacy" for POV people disagree with becomes "upholding neutrality by giving due weight" when the POV is something people agree with). Of course, if you start actively engaging in predatory behavior a la sevenseas, you're outta here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 7:17pm
Post #9


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 6:21pm) *

Nah, in this case I'm going to toss my lot in with the more radical elements at WP:CHILD, and say that "thoughtcrime" alone is a piss-poor reason to ban somebody.

I don't think Haiduc was banned because people decided that he had thoughts about children that were unacceptable. I think he was banned for years of attempting to normalize adult-child sexual relationships via his editing. Just saying.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bielle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 7:30pm
Post #10


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon 27th Jun 2011, 6:07am
Member No.: 58,227

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 7:17pm) *

I don't think Haiduc was banned because people decided that he had thoughts about children that were unacceptable. I think he was banned for years of attempting to normalize adult-child sexual relationships via his editing. Just saying.


How is "Just saying" to be interpreted? When I have seen someone who was using the phrase, his body language was hands up, palm outwards and shoulder high as if to add "and don't argue -or push- on this". Seems an odd comment to append to a WR post.

This post has been edited by Bielle: Fri 8th July 2011, 8:11pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 8th July 2011, 8:25pm
Post #11


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 7:17pm) *

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 6:21pm) *

Nah, in this case I'm going to toss my lot in with the more radical elements at WP:CHILD, and say that "thoughtcrime" alone is a piss-poor reason to ban somebody.

I don't think Haiduc was banned because people decided that he had thoughts about children that were unacceptable. I think he was banned for years of attempting to normalize adult-child sexual relationships via his editing. Just saying.


So what? If what he's adding is sourced and gives due weight, more power to him. I'm amused that Wikipedia trumpets "NPOV!" and "Verifiability, not truth!" on the one hand, then scurries about fueling moral panics on the other.

If on the other hand he's being disruptive, block him -- publicly -- for specific instances where he edit warred, etc. Don't block him for "pedophile activism" on a secret mailing list.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32pm
Post #12


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(Bielle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 12:30pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 7:17pm) *

I don't think Haiduc was banned because people decided that he had thoughts about children that were unacceptable. I think he was banned for years of attempting to normalize adult-child sexual relationships via his editing. Just saying.


How is "Just saying" to be interpreted? When I have seen someone who was using the phrase, his body language was hands up, palm outwards and shoulder high as if to add "and don't argue -or push- on this". Seems an odd comment to append to a WR post.

I do believe you encountered a mime. A really incompetent mime. Just sayin'.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 8:59pm
Post #13


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32pm) *

QUOTE(Bielle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 12:30pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 8th July 2011, 7:17pm) *

I don't think Haiduc was banned because people decided that he had thoughts about children that were unacceptable. I think he was banned for years of attempting to normalize adult-child sexual relationships via his editing. Just saying.


How is "Just saying" to be interpreted? When I have seen someone who was using the phrase, his body language was hands up, palm outwards and shoulder high as if to add "and don't argue -or push- on this". Seems an odd comment to append to a WR post.

I do believe you encountered a mime. A really incompetent mime. Just sayin'.

Or perhaps it was someone trapped in an invisible box. Just saying.

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:25pm) *

So what? If what he's adding is sourced and gives due weight, more power to him. I'm amused that Wikipedia trumpets "NPOV!" and "Verifiability, not truth!" on the one hand, then scurries about fueling moral panics on the other.

If on the other hand he's being disruptive, block him -- publicly -- for specific instances where he edit warred, etc. Don't block him for "pedophile activism" on a secret mailing list.

Tyciol?

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Fri 8th July 2011, 9:00pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 8th July 2011, 9:11pm
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE

Tyciol?


Nope. I myself have never edited any articles related to pedophilia (or sexuality generally, even).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bielle
post Fri 8th July 2011, 9:46pm
Post #15


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon 27th Jun 2011, 6:07am
Member No.: 58,227

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:32pm) *

I do believe you encountered a mime. A really incompetent mime. Just sayin'.


rolleyes.gif Really incompetent - otherwise he wouldn't need to have spoken. Is "just saying" some kind of verbal tic, like "yuh know"?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th 12 17, 7:53pm