Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field Options

[gomi]

I felt a sincere need to highlight this post by Everyking (T-C-L-K-R-D) here on the Review:

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

The context was a discussion of an apparent convicted pedophile editing Wikipedia, and Everyking seems to have taken another step or five away from any social norms or objective reality in his position that someone -- someone convicted of sourcing just about the only kind of pornography from the Internet that is still illegal -- should in no way be hindered from editing Wikipedia.

Call someone an "asshole" -- lifetime ban. Commit a felony involving child porn -- welcome! What a strange world you inhabit.

[One]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

[MZMcBride]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

I always thought it largely surrounded an "ick" factor. Saying that a free content online encyclopedia is a platform for grooming seems a bit... odd.

[One]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

I always thought it largely surrounded an "ick" factor. Saying that a free content online encyclopedia is a platform for grooming seems a bit... odd.

Almost as odd as describing Wikipedia as a "free content online encyclopedia." Certainly, that's the product, but the users of Wikipedia are on a sort of social networking site.

If it were just the ick factor--if everyone on the site had to verify that they were of the age of majority--I would not think they needed to be banned. Heck, labeling them makes it easier to monitor the POV of their contributions.

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

[everyking]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[gomi]

Hmm. And what is the most straightforward way of addressing that situation? Make users assert they are "over the age of majority". There, that was easy!

No, wait. There is no one in a position of leadership on Wikipedia with the balls to even suggest it enforce COPPA, much less ensure nominally adult editors.

"Dysfunctional parade of idiots" you say? I couldn't agree more. I don't know what's worse: Everyking's moronic reality distortion field, or One/Cool Hand Luke's (and the rest of ArbCom's) unwillingness to do anything to puncture it. It's the impotent leading the limp-dicked, to coin a phrase.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Well here's an image for the article fellatio, even do not know if wikipedia would censor it. Now they say it's incest and pedophilia, but when I was a kid was called "playing doctor". The text reads:

"What if I get mummy?"
"I'd say it's very rude to talk with your mouth full."

- Bonnot Talk 07:43 16 jul 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes pedo-apologists ... "the Wikipedia is not censored" and if I have a problem with any of this stuff it is MY problem and if I feel strongly enough about, gosh, I can waste my life on RfCs about it and ... "let the community decide" ... "community" meaning which ever 4 pedophilia and pederast apologists turn up at that time.

One man's pedophile pornography ... is another man's high art, even if it entails "daddy" sucking and blowing with his daughter.

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct ... The only solution is to just watch them.

So, let us have everyone using their real names and verified accounts (e.g. a micropayment to credit/debit cards like Paypal);

a) to discourage pedophiles or pederasts from signing up
b) to allow those that want to keep an eye on them watch them.

The problem is at present, all the pedos are skirting around the kindergarten wearing cloaks and masks.

If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

There is actually a sort of logic to this ... BIG IF it were to lead to individuals being tracked, traced and policed ... but who does that, who is going to do that, why should it fall onto volunteers' shoulders and what happens in the meantime?

a) Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to put to good use some of its multi-millions and handle this 'duty of care' issue in a professional manner, i.e. accepting the current liabilities?
b) Is it going to adequately warn parents and teachers etc, Or ...

c)Is it going to continue to favor protecting the anonymity of the pedophiles, pederasts and bestiality freaks? No answer needed. This is not addressed at you personally. We all know they chose option c).

There is no one in a position of leadership on Wikipedia with the balls to even suggest it enforce COPPA, much less ensure nominally adult editors.

Meanwhile ... back on the Wikipedia Boy page ...

Revision as of 07:44, 15 February 2010 174.21.116.120 (T-C-L-K-R-D) gives us,

"Boys, unlike girls, are able to urinate standing up, and can pee outside on the earth": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drinking...s_WGAREG001.jpg

Why do you not want to be a girl? Because I do not want to pee with nothing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...s_vifs_-_04.jpg

... with a nice display of not just boy "cocky" but upskirt naked prepubescent girl vagina as well. Albeit done tastefully with classical lithographs. The later image which turns up again on Urination along with not one but two pissing goats (thank you David "Shakbone" Miller and the Government of Israel) and not one erotic galleries but two erotic galleries which excel themselves with not child on child sexual images but what I guess would constitute lesbian pedophile rape these days.


Whereas, I am sure 'lesbian pederasts' might argue that the lesbian pedophile rape was an example of loving consensual sexplay between an adult and a child, the statistical existence of said pedophiles is extremely low in comparison to male pedophiles. So, let us presume the more obvious ... that such images were used for male sexual arousal and were no less pedophiliac pornography than the dubious pedophiliac Lolicon Manga we have discussed elsewhere.

It appears on various pages; child sexuality, Masturbation, Mutual Masterbation, Pedophilia, Lesbianism, Lesbian pornography, Lesbianism in erotica, and Sexual practices ... the latter alongside some nice anal penetration and a pair of fucking giraffes. One could not make this stuff up if one tried ... and one would not believed if one did. So, let's go further ... how about some nice pedophiliac mutual oral sex between male teacher and girl student, asking about mommy, dolly strewn at her feet.

Fine "upstanding Wikipedians in good stead", as Jimmy Wales or New York Brad would call it LostCause1979 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Symane (T-C-L-K-R-D) Chuck es dios (T-C-L-K-R-D) getting a special mention. Chuck es dios being a bit of a specialist in fisting and related topics, Bonnot have expertise in Striptease, Auto-fellatio, underage lesbian porn, illustrated pedophiliac masturbation fantasies on the Pedophile topic page (I suppose it helps a child looking it know what teacher is actually doing when she sits on his knee ... it has been there for more than a year), some child sex play, some child rape or a little death post-child rape most of which is doing nothing but appear on users' homepages.

If that does not do it for you ... you can waste your time again tidying up after these enlightened editors ...

81.145.249.136 - Did you know that men who likes MEN is homersexual (gay). Dont do that when you are older little children. (... and what did Homer Simpson ever do to you, kid?)
206.131.48.254 - Lets make this short a boy is a girl and a girl is a boy but Nick Benidict Bauer doesnt qualify for either a boy or a girl. People say every thing has a gender but they all lied so suck on that.
81.145.249.136 - Removed all nacked boys from gallery, get your pedo kinks somewhere else!
81.159.212.89 - Boys are really smelly, They smellof there poo when theyve com off the toilet. Boys are so ugly'
64.175.35.150 - 'boy fuck girl. boy have sex with girl.'
216.36.160.140 - ''''HOW TO USE RAPE IN A SENTENCE''' <nowiki>YOUR MOTHER RAPED LITTLE BOYZ!</nowiki> <ref>HISTORY CLASS</ref> == OOTHER PLACES TO VISIT == 1. YOUR MOMS BASEMEN...')
82.12.126.118 - Dopeboy, is a fat Mexican faggot. He has no life and also is really sad, because he jacks of to any picture you give him. He's a big fat baby who cries when …') (undo)
67.184.80.60 - they are big fat slimy pigs with no brains

[Peter Damian]

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

That's an interesting and paradoxical statement.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Krimpet]

Almost as odd as describing Wikipedia as a "free content online encyclopedia." Certainly, that's the product, but the users of Wikipedia are on a sort of social networking site.

It's particularly a social networking site for some of the kids, with their often naïvely detailed information about themselves on their userpages, "friends" lists, "guestbooks," "hidden pages," and at least in a couple instances, "Mary Sue" fiction about themselves and their friends' adventures on Wikipedia, styled like a Nickelodeon cartoon. Worse, most of these social-networking uses have been approved by The Community™ at some point, even though supposedly "Wikipedia is not MySpace."

It's pretty frightening, and a potential predators' paradise.

This post has been edited by Krimpet:

[GlassBeadGame]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

That is dishonest, two cute by half reasoning. The solution is get rid of them. You can't watch their email communication which is of course the most dangerous. Tyciol made a point of putting every piece of private contact information, email, chat, pm etc everywhere he could.

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

[Eva Destruction]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice? (Admittedly, I don't think this is a resignation issue; while he may have very dubious opinions on pedophilia, I've not seen any sign of it on Wikipedia. If he were to unblock a blocked pedo on the grounds that it breaches their basic human right to edit Wikipedia (which seems to be the tenor of his argument here), or said that he would do so if the matter arose, that would be a different issue.)

[GlassBeadGame]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice?

Mr. Democracy won't let "the people" vote on his continuation?

[SB_Johnny]

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

That's an interesting and paradoxical statement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ActionShot2.jpg

huh, how do you control image size, praytell?

[Jon Awbrey]

If it were simply a question of a single person with the worldly experience and common sense of a wax paper kazoo, then I'd be content to leave EK on my ignore list and talk about something remotely intelligent.

But the fact is that Wikiputia absolutely depends on having hordes of these NPOVerished mentalities, who feel duty bound by their Dogshit Dogma to be "neutral", "objective", and "passive" about things that make the blood of normal human beings boil over.

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[NotARepublican55]

Seriously, how old is Everyking?

If it were simply a question of a single person with the worldly experience and common sense of a wax paper kazoo, then I'd be content to leave EK on my ignore list and talk about something remotely intelligent.

But the fact is that Wikiputia absolutely depends on having hordes of these NPOVerished mentalities, who feel duty bound by their Dogshit Dogma to be "neutral", "objective", and "passive" about things that make the blood of normal human beings boil over.

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Please do.

[A Horse With No Name]

Seriously, how old is Everyking?

He's probably playing jacks with NW. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Zoloft]

Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everyking get banned.
I'd expect that sort of response from Wikipedia, not here.
I interrupted a newbie mugging this morning over there. Yecch.

[Jon Awbrey]

Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everyking get banned.
I'd expect that sort of response from Wikipedia, not here.
I interrupted a newbie mugging this morning over there. Yecch.

I've always been against banning as a form of routine moderation — but EK is such a True Believer's True Believer in Wikipediot Ways that I should think he would welcome us importing more of their routines, especially in application to such diehard e-pologists of Wikipediocracy.

Wikipoetic Justice and All That …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

He's probably playing jacks with NW.

I much prefer four square to jacks, thank you very much (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[everyking]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice?

Mr. Democracy won't let "the people" vote on his continuation?

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.