Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Herostratus LIVES!

Posted by: EricBarbour

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=343196318&oldid=302022861, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28682.

Why is his account still active?

Posted by: everyking

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Herostratus @ his successors and/or assigns)

UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!

As he seems to acknowledge sharing his password, other speculation might be completely moot. Still I can't help but inquire about the significance of 1960 in this context.

A quick search reveals that certain formerly copyright-protected works published in Canada before 1960 are public domain they meet other specific criteria, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant.

Might censorship laws in his jurisdiction have some kind of grand-father clause (assuming the prevailing theory is true)?

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?


But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?


But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

Posted by: Viridae

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?


But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.


Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 4:32pm) *
Can someone please link someone background about this guy?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=23280&hl=Herostratus&view=findpost&p=161139, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=23395&hl=Herostratus&view=findpost&p=163183.
And http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/kids-next-door.php.

Most of the discussion is in a "restricted area".....sorry.....

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:45am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?


But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.


Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.


He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:56pm) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.


Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.


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?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 9:04pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.


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?

You have no perspective whatsoever. Editing an on-line "encyclopedia" is not a basic human right. If a person presents any risk to children at all just don't let them participate. This is especially true in the absence of any vetting or supervision. This is not some crappy little "deletion review" debate on Wikipedia and your "slippery slope" argument is so out of context as to mark you as hopeless case.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:32am) *

Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

I think you overstate your case. Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages "child and adult collaboration". Indeed it's often impossible to tell who's the child and who's the adult.

Surely the only possible real world danger that a wikipedia encounter might involve would come from private email communications?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:04pm) *
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?

Jeez, EK, you're really making me wonder about what is rattling around loose in your skull. Look at the guy's edit history--an obsessive interest in child-adult sex and child-adult sex related articles. Legal authorities have seen fit to ban him from all internet usage. (A ban he is trying to sneak past.)

Are you willing to follow him around on-wiki (along with a number of other http://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign) and insure all his edits are properly neutral and meet general community standards? If not, then where do you get the idea that the general public would find this "acceptable"?

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:50pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:45am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) *

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?


But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.


Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.


He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).


Well, he just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AHerostratus, so that didn't accomplish all that much. smile.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:22am) *

Well, he just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AHerostratus, so that didn't accomplish all that much. smile.gif

Presumably that was his court appointed proxy again. What a joke.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Now at ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Herostratus

And, yes, Baseball Bugs is already there! ermm.gif

Posted by: Mike R

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 9:33pm) *

Now at ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Herostratus

And, yes, Baseball Bugs is already there! :ermm:


In reply to Bugs's comment, I believe admin Hermione1980 (T-C-L-K-R-D) once had to take an extended wikibreak due to being grounded.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 8:04pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.


I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity.

Fail.

QUOTE

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?

Depends.

QUOTE

Credit card fraud?

No

QUOTE

Terrorism?

Yes.

QUOTE

Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

Terrorism does, credit card fraud doesn't. You on the other hand are so hopelessly retarded that you warrant either a full lobotomy or euthanasia - whichever's cheaper. dry.gif

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 9:04pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) *

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?


Eric said that Herostratus was "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=223139" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.


If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.


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?


What on earth is wrong with you? You'd let known or strongly suspected pedophiles edit Wikipedia? Would you let Osama Bin Laden edit it knowing that he's an international terrorist? If the Foundation or the Wikipedia Community allowed that, the WMF's servers would be melted down and Jimbo ran out of the U.S. on a rail. Section 230 be damned!

For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 10:57pm) *


For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.


Yes, where is Arbcom on this? huh.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:00am) *

Yes, where is Arbcom on this? huh.gif

Hiding?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/sandbox to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch, of course!
An organization http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&dir=prev&action=history!

And Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Awards from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=209158600&oldid=195829932 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=209158600 edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=210835325 in June.
Around that time, http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x987433236 and http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1880505389/Man-accused-of-child-porn-remains-in-jail was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

Update: Herostratus says it "was all just a joke". Should we take his word for it? bored.gif

For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published after 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 10:07pm) *

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/sandbox to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch, of course!
An organization http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&dir=prev&action=history!

And Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Awards from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=209158600&oldid=195829932 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=209158600 edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=210835325 in June.
Around that time, http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x987433236 and http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1880505389/Man-accused-of-child-porn-remains-in-jail was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

According to court records, Aucoin had a user profile on an Internet site frequented by pedophiles looking to exploit children.

Aucoin used the screen names "Fred Flint" and "Somf" to chat online with an undercover officer, who posed as a 14-year-old boy using a fictitious photograph, authorities have said.

After a warrant was issued and a computer forensic technician from the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council examined Aucoin's hard drives, police recovered 131 photographs of naked children and teenagers, some of them engaged in sexual acts.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:07pm) *

Would anyone care to explain the following away?

Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/sandbox to Will Beback.
What is "PAW"? It's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch, of course!
An organization http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&dir=prev&action=history!

And Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Awards from Arbcom member FloNight and admin DanielCD, and reciprocated.

Interesting timing: according to Tarantino, Herostratus lived in the Boston area.
He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=209158600&oldid=195829932 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=209158600 edits to his userpage in April 2008. Followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=next&oldid=210835325 in June.
Around that time, http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x987433236 and http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1880505389/Man-accused-of-child-porn-remains-in-jail was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.


He was editing right through the period he was supposed to be in jail.

Posted by: IN278S

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:15pm) *

He was editing right through the period he was supposed to be in jail.

Yes, and Aucoin was ordered not to use or have access to computers during this time. I'm afraid the glove doesn't fit.

Posted by: jd turk

I had something typed up about admins pulling stupid jokes, and how that kind of thing makes WP look even stupider for giving people without maturity power over others.

After the rest of the revelations, though, I suppose that's the least of the WP problems.

Posted by: EricBarbour

If Hero is simply a joker/smartass, (and he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/hate_mail), then fine.
Let him explain why he spent so much time on the Pedophilia Article Watch.
I'd prefer to see HIS explanation, not Everyking or Baseball Bugs "rationalizing".

Okay, now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/pedophilia_mail some light reading for you. All from 2005/2006.
I pasted it below so he can't delete/oversight it.

QUOTE
Your CfD edit

I noticed your comment at the CfD entry for Category:Pederastic lovers and would like to point out that there might have been a misunderstanding. This is not an "automatic delete" candidate since that would refer, as you indicated to "basically a recreation of a deleted category under a different name." Instead, this is a case where a category was rejected largely on grounds of bad naming, rather than its intrinsic validity or lack of it. The "presiding" admin suggested that the best way to resolve the impasse was to correct the flaws and resubmit. Thus this is not merely a case of a new parading of a flawed category rejected for its substance, and there is substantial consensus among the judges that the new version resolves the main obstacle with the previous version. So, unless there other issues I am not aware of, I would like to ask you to look at the merits of the category (a compendium of historical personages who engaged in age-structured homosexual relationships) and decide on that basis. (I don't think that you really mean to imply that a naming error permanently vitiates an otherwise valid category.) Haiduc 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Humility is a worthy goal, obedience perhaps not. Thank you for your attention, and your frankness. If you wondered why I addressed you, and not some of the others who voted against keeping the category, I did so in large part because you are a Unitarian. Before I started practicing the buddhadharma I attended a Unitarian church for a while, and I found the people there kind and thoughtful. You have not disappointed me, though there may be one or two things we do not see eye to eye on. And since we both have non-secular interests as well, let me get right to the point. I do not see the discussion as being fundamentally about sex. The "carnal scenario" is the projection of modern materialism onto the sacred space of other cultures, it is the desecration of those cultures. The core discourse (as described by contemporary thinkers) was about actualizing personal and cultural ideals, and transmitting those ideals from one generation to the next. Was there decadence? Was there abuse, rape, violation? Without a doubt! Should that lead us to suppress study of this topic? I rather think we should expose as much of it as we can, so that we can understand it, understand the human nature that led to the zeniths and the nadirs, and understand ourselves in the process.

You suggest I keep quiet, and not conflate pederasty with "normal homosexuality." The only guideline here should be intellectual integrity. We should not conflate, and we should not be in denial. Let's look at the facts in the face, let's report them accurately, and let the chips fall where they may. And those facts are not what most people imagine, since there has been a long (2000 year) campaign of not only suppressing the practice but suppressing information about it as well. Researching this topic has been a real eye opener for me, a personal journey from rank homophobia to discovering a millenial (and ongoing) pattern of censorship equaled by few others. On the other hand, I caution you against taking my words out of context. One heavy-handed passage, in response to a false and pernicious charge, sums up neither my work here nor my philosophy. While it has been my goal to document the practice of pederasty in all its aspects — how could you tell? wink.gif — it has equally been my goal to be utterly ruthless in what I write, and document the horrors as well as the ideals.


A couple more points, and I'm done.

1. My recruiting "like-minded" editors to vote. I beg to differ. I posted a notice in the gay and lesbian forum, but as you noted yourself, gays are often more uncomfortable with this topic than non-gays. And the few personal messages I sent out did not only go to people who agreed with me. At least one went to a person who voted against the first version, but whom I invited back because they seemed to have done so from a rational standpoint. So please retract your charge.
2. The "sex-with-minors" thing. It should be perfectly obvious that different communities have different standards about what relationships are and are not proper. Let us have the consideration to not presume we are in posession of wisdom that has passed them by, if we happen to live in a place where only 18 year olds have that right. It is ethnocentric at best, to say nothing about trashing humility and other values. I do not presume to understand why, for example, the [fill in the blank] allow their fifteen year olds freedom of sexual expression. I would like to think that it is because they recognize the value of love, and see sexual expression as a minor and incidental side to it. But here I am truly projecting. And if I may project a bit more, since you have introduced my putative preferences into this argument, let me say that I think that liberalizing adult sexual access to teens would be insanity, and worse than the present disaster of prohibiting it. Speaking as a parent, if you are after sex, stay away from my kids! At the same time, having adults love and mentor teens, acknowledging their beauty and erotic power without tresspassing the bounds of decency (would you countenance an occasional kiss?), would go a long way towards countering the hoi-polloization of western society. Maybe not exactly a mouse, but hardly an elephant, would you not agree?
3. Bring you up on charges of attack?! If something cannot be resolved by openness, kindness and rationality, it cannot be resolved at all. I am not at all upset by your very understandable accusations. I do think you have jumped to facile conclusions, and trivialized and misrepresented my position. But I cannot blame you because this is an explosive topic, and there is a certain body of dogma that we all have willy-nilly internalized. Nobody is whole here, and the only way to work with the situation is to air it out, the way I am doing, and the way you are doing. My relations with my neighbors? We have respect for each other, and part of that respect is not using each other as targets for eccentric political views. As for the Wikipedia kitchen, that is a different matter. It does get hot in here, but if comfort was what we wanted, I guess we would be watching tee-vee.
4. Finally, as far as your own vote, if you feel that you based it on a defensible argument and it is up to your standards of intellectual integrity, I have nothing more to say. Haiduc 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. I'm better and will be able to leave for my retreat, even if a couple of days late. Being here I noticed the fiasco with Rhollenton. I am very sorry if my work here caused his leaving, even if indirectly. If you reach him please let him know that I in no way condone illegal activities - if he got that impression it's because it is a very provocative topic that lends itself easily to misinterpretation. Haiduc 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a group for cleaning up the pedophile support article

That's a great idea. It's too large for wikipedia standards, because it has a sprawling, ill defined sense of what it's documenting. It needs less pedophile newsletter information and more news articles actually about this group, more like the Ex-Gay article. Lotusduck 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if we can come up with a draft that's balanced, we can put it up on a temp page for comment, and then perhaps have a vote to replace the one there now. There's all kinds of possibilities. --DanielCD 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best that I was not directly involved. I have had a change of heart about working on those projects, as the material and the people that seem to be active in it are most distasteful (the attitudes have been bringing out the worst in me (as I'm sure you've seen) and I've decided firmly to back off). All the debate is just pages and pages of styrofoam fluff, or so it seems. However, I have become somewhat familiar with the topic, and would certainly be available for technical/proofreading things, and would be interested in seeing the draft (as I trust you guys not to be pushing agendas or assuming moral superiority to the point of nausea). I'll probably still do some editing from time to time on the adjacent articles that are directly related to psychology (paraphilia, pedophilia, sexual development, etc.), but not with the PA or NAMBLA or such stuff.

Yes, I'd like to help, but not directly. I'd like to proofread and comment, and my services as an administrator would be available to you on the asking (and, of course, considering the intricacies of the particular circumstance). Or I could do nothing at all, if you'd prefer.

I might take a full break (wikivacation) for a few days sometime over the next month to try to regain some perspective, but I don't know when yet. Just let me know when you get something cooking. I applaud you're efforts in this regard. --DanielCD 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this article: Ego, superego, and id is up for the improvement drive and needs one more vote to make it. See the box at the top of the article for details. --DanielCD 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is quite a mess really. It's constantly getting vandalised, reverted, locked, unlocked, AFD/VFD'ed, Disputed Neutrality and factuality'ed etc... Anyhow, it's about time someone tried to sort all that out. Count me in =) = Silent War = 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Child luv

Hey, how are things going with this (or not going with this) project. Looks to have gotten off to a flat start. LMK if you are still thinking about it; I'm curious. --DanielCD 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, looking good. I'll give it a good look at and give comments as I can. --DanielCD 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the least, I think the forum should definitely be used for evaluating references used at the articles, especially the PA article. That's an area that really needs some work, and I can chip in a few refs to review as well. --DanielCD 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to access this site: [[1]. Lotusduck couldn't access it, and I couldn't access it in Internet Explorer, but it gives a somewhat different take on it and might be of interest. --DanielCD 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Project

Please see my comments at User talk:Herostratus/Pedophilia. I may suggest things you've already thought of, but then again, that's all the more reason to think it's important. I really am liking the idea of this project and respect the time and effort you are doing in this regard.

I would like to know if there any feelings you have about me being involved. One of your messages seemed to imply that it'd be better for me not to, which is ok. I can be a smartass when I feel people are being overly-rightious (to put it mildly), but apart from the occasional sour comment, my judgement is usually sound. I am now actively considering what role I should take, and welcome any comments from you regardless of their content. I can take constructive criticism, so don't worry about socking it to me, especially if I say you can! (Remember before, when you said you needed that thump on the head? We all need that sometimes!)

Anyway, I'm feeling rather confident that this plan/project of yours is not just good, but may even be necessary (and long overdue!).

I'd like to offer pointers about things to keep in mind, and one is the tendancy I'm seeing to sway things one way or the other because of outside publicity and "newcomer" editors that are here "to set things straight". Things like Childlove should focus on their ("Childlovers"') views, and the detractors' views should come after (though there will be times to qualify statements in both areas). And I am also thinking the article might be better with the name Childlove advocacy (but I'm not married to that idea, mind you.) Just like at Pedophilia, the medical views come first and formost, then other views. It's with those areas, solidly defined in a well-written intro, that the core of a great article can come into being, and lots of discussion time can be cut down if everyone is on the same page.

Beware of public opinion. It is a power to note, but shouldn't dictate a POV. Some people think it should default there, but, as policy says, NPOV is not negotiable. --DanielCD 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing about the project is it can potentially get us all on the same page, so we are not arguing apples and oranges. Right now I'm starting to get in the mental mode of focusing on a certain area; since I left off the 1911EB project two or so months ago (right before the Beckjord cabal), I have been kind of floating about. I need to sit down and decide where I want to focus. I want to work on definitions and citations, making Wikipedia less wish-washy, and that's why I like this.

If nothing else, we can use this as a discussion area to reach a consensus among ourselves, and as a group present things. I do not mean in the sense of a pressure group or "gang", but in the sense that we can refer people to our reasoning, which would be in a central location.

You may not be certain what to do with it as yet, but hey, did Einstein know what to do with E=mc2 when he came up with it in 1905? It led to the atomic bomb 40 years later (not that that will be the result here mind you!) --DanielCD 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred!
For having the balls to clean the McCarthyite Moralist POV-Pushing BS out of the Wikipedia pedophilia articles, you are hereby awarded the Edward R. Murrow barnstar, which is awarded to those who struggle against fraudulent propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Dragon695 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck and Godspeed my friend, I don't envy your task :-/ --Dragon695 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ped. Project

Looks like this is getting off to a lukewarm start. No responses to the comments I've made on the talk page. You seeing any action? Perhaps we sould advertise it more. There is stuff going on at the Pedophilia article itself that really needs a forum for debate, and this might be what we need to straighten the issues out and get everyone on the same page. I'm ISO ideas though, and you seem to be fruitful in that area. We seriously need to debate the nature of the Pedophilia article itself, so it will have a solid definition people can rest on and take the pro/con debate elsewhere. I'm concerned another article is going to pop up on "anti-pedophilia" and confuse/complicate the matter.

I'd also like to have a central place to find the debates, as I am all-too-often going into things without having read everything. But who could read all the material in these rambling debates? --DanielCD 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey wake up. I miss your sense of humor, and you're never around. My interest in the project hasn't waned. --DanielCD 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been saying that there was something in the air, an issue that will soon rise to a point that it had to be addressed. Well, perhaps this is it: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. --DanielCD 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you to some comments I made FloNight. I really wish these guys exercised more tact, but I figured the bounds would be tested. It's human; humans test boundaries. --DanielCD 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

Are you always a hilarious smartarse or was this an abberation? The timing was unfortunate, and it's a hot button subject. I'll be suprised if it doesn't get deleted, however hope springs eternal in the human heart. - brenneman(t)© 10:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Based upon a note by a third party regarding the "gravity" of the situation, I'll be less crytic: I thought that your comments were accurate and damning, but had the added charm of being humourous. I'd have thought from the tone of the above message and the fact that I've recommended "keep" that would have been obvious, but have been known to be unintentionally occult before.
brenneman(t)© 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project

My comments at the delete are sharp, but are not at any way aimed at you or the project. I wanted to improve the articles, the medical aspects and such. Without my coordination at the "P" article, I imagine it will soon return to a quagmire. We should have debated and voted Herostratus. Then we may have seen the possiblity of integrating this as a subsection of another project and/or gotten much more input from outside about how to proceed.

I hope this doesn't cost me your friendship. And if anyone give you trouble about your intentions, by all means let me know. Things will be set straight in that regard, and I will defend you until the day I leave this asylum for good, which will be soon if you are attacked in this manner. Let Wikipedia chase off the people with expertise in critical areas. If they do, they will deserve it dearly, and quality will suffer in that regard. Feel free to ask anything of me my friend. --DanielCD 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm deleting that petty troll-trash above my comment here. Feel free to revert that, or restore it to an archive and scold me accordingly. --DanielCD 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, there is no ill-will at all, and I look forward to working with you in other arenas.

And don't think you did anything wrong. A mistake is a mistake; and you acted in good faith. I was starting to drift to other interests myself. --DanielCD 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedo project

You know what would go a long way to making people believe the project is not POINT? Remove the userbox, entirely. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An apology

I want to apolgize to you for not having discussed this with you first. I have to agree that you are right that I did not assume good faith. It was just a huge amount of bad timing. The fact that there was a userbox pointing to the project on top of the previous war over the other pedo userbox was what triggered my reaction. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. In regards to the userbox you made: I actually didn't even notice that until now. Man, I've had my head in the sand. I was thinking the criticism was aimed at the project, and didn't realize there was another userbox, which kinda crosses issues. I just got caught up in a wirlwind... I don't know what to say but... Wow. Anyway...

"Guess what...? I got a fever... and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

I've been irritating half the 'pedia with this silly link, so I miteaswell givit ta ya' as well... Stay cool man! And remember... it's you lighthearted types that keep this place from exploding, so stay handy...! --DanielCD 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, you're not the only one who said things they wish could be taken back. Just remember, some got burned harder than us. --DanielCD 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what all these people are apologizing to you for or what this whole group hug thing is but It's so emotionally overwhelming, I can't stand it! I'm sorry too! I love eeeewwweeee! (said like Mel Gibson in Braveheart :-) Lawyer2b 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Now I'm gonna cry... Herostratus

SO IT WAS YOU! YOU BASTARD! I've had bloody Don't Fear the Reaper running round my brain for the last week and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! I'm coming round with a wikibat right now... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm just making a fresh start. My pages will repopulate as I reassimilate into a new mode of editing. My biggest frustration in all this was missing all the action, and being in the dark about what was happening, yet still being caught up in the wake. I was only finding out about things like a day after they happened, and ...wow. I learned a bunch though; I think we all did. And I actually think the striked message I left was rather well-crafted and harmless considering what I wanted to say.

I just hope someone out there is aware of the potential problems (to put it mildly) that could potentially arise. It's a pain actually caring about something. But the other guy was peobably right; it's not my job to defend Wikipedia, at least not in that depth/way. Also: I'm going to archive all related comments and just leave new stuff, so don't be offended if one of your comments disappears off my talk page. See ya round. --DanielCD 14:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Group hug

I tried to tone down my response over at MfD, but if I still caught you wrong, I apologize. Good to see that a bit more perspective is coming back over time .... who knows, maybe we'll have an encyclop(a)edia here soon! Cheers. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, you should have seen the first draft of what I wrote...anyway, I've voted to keep the project (albeit with an expanded focus), hopefully there will be enough eyes that come back to it to keep it from being knee-jerk deleted. You really did catch the raw end of the stick on this one. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da joyks

Let the jerks be Hero. We know the truth. I like the abbreviated "Hero". It kinda fits. --DanielCD 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project sexuality: subproject Age-related issues

What is in a name? Would not a rose smell as sweet were it called by another name? Human s are irrational and put great stock in the names of things. Why give a project a name that provokes irrational responses? If you want to help, try again; only this time take into consideration human nature. The project is ABOUT human nature? Right? So USE your knowledge of human nature when you make descisions and don't just write about it. That's my two cents. WAS 4.250 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Screw two cents, I might just buy that for a whole quarter. ! :-)) --DanielCD 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

That is all. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vote

I voted at the article deletion review. I hope you don't feel like I abandoned you at a critical moment, but looking back, it seems like I did. It's so good to have the storm on the backside-horizon though. I feel a lot better this week about everything. I learned a ton. LMK how you are feeling lately. --DanielCD 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No rough feelings anywhere here. I just need to stop checking in on the deletion review, because I keep putting my foot in my mouth for no real reason. I've been doing light editing and stuff; feeling a lot better, but still not anxious to go back into that debate for a long while... Problem is, I am doing some research that touches on it, so a lot of good insight may be lost. But so what, it's only an encyclopedia. No life or death matters here. --DanielCD 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. You deserve one more than anyone though, and we'll see about fixing that. --DanielCD 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Per your em note: yes, I've noticed exactly what you are saying, and likewise didn't want to say anything openly. There's actually a broader problem with advocacy on a variety of issues. I'm uncertain as what to do though (or if I should bother, the "trustees" seem quite unconcerned, so why should I worry if they get bit in the ass on something?). Right now I'm still sorting out my relationship to this whole thing, as far as what my goals are. But I'm tired of jumping before thinking, so this time, I opt to wait, be patient, and think.

And yea, I think that comment I made was a speed-bump that stopped the momentum at the right time, halted the progression enough to allow some ppl to see where it was heading. Just look at the comment above mine. It came in after mine, but... ya never know. Who can really say after the fact? --DanielCD 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophile activism

THanks for your comment on my talkpage the other day. I'm still getting the hang of this, so you may not have seen my response, since it was on my own page, lol. Anyway, feel free to check out this page (and my comment about it on the P.A. talk page). It probably just shows I have too much time on my hands! Have a good one. Joey Q. McCartney 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pedophilia

* I am not currently an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, though the articles I tend to participate on have a good deal overlap with that project. It was my understanding that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality was fairly dead.
* I'm not sure I want to join any more wikiprojects at the moment, but I'll consider it, once y'all get started.
* I have no objection to you joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and adding any subprojects you want, though I'm sure there will be someone who does (mind you, maybe that fact shouldn't stop you).

Good luck with your project! -Seth Mahoney 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

Feel free to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as you will. I haven't touched the page in many months. Most interest has shifted to Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. -- Beland 23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject subproject

Hi Sam Spade. I'm contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I recently created a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:

* Are you still an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?
* Hi! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
* Be aware that we have had a difficult birth and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
* In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
* We are considering renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?Herostratus 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea I was in the sexology project. I think I'd better remove my name... Paraphilia will open up alot of moral questions on what to include.. at its broadest it would include homosexuality, S&M, and all sorts of other kinks. At its most specific it wouldn't include most pedophilia. Sam Spade 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping Sam would get on the wagon! Ignore the EM I guess. --DanielCD 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

...............Survived......... --DanielCD 02:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Purely preventative. Be very cautious with it, and please please take the notices I left to heart, at least for the time being. Just leave that aspect be for now. I'll reply more tomorrow as I'm too tired tonight. --DanielCD 05:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] childlove/pedophilia

saw your post on this topic, but i don't have time today to give it the thought it deserves. We'll just need to be sure eventually that it's all verifiable. take care, Joey Q. McCartney 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: We need to talk

I reverted your edit to Child sexual abuse. Obviously the essay is very moving, but I think we would need a lot more background before we can add that link to any article. Questions I have:

1. You have two edits since March 1. But the March 1 edit was from a user in the United States, so that is not you (I presume). So as far I can see you have two edits.

No idea about that.

1. But you mentioned people at Wikipedia.org helping you with the essay. What is that about? There is no record of these conversations in the talk page here. Do you have a named account, or something?

There wasn't much, and I wrote it a while ago, for some reason it was removed. A few people who said they found me from wikipedia gave me some good feedback on the article by email, a while ago.

1. It would be highly unusual to link to what is basically an anonymous post. We would need verification that the events described are true, for instance. A typical minimum would be if the essay was posted on a web site which gaver your name.

I am getting a website back up, I forgot to log into my wikipedia account, Kintaro.

Sorry. If you would be kind enough to message me back (click on my username at the end of this message), that would be great. Herostratus 09:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. --Kintaro 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My first thought is that we can't be having people write outside essays just to refer to them in the articles. This is somethng to consider. But keep in mind I still need to read the paper. --DanielCD 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Several things come to mind as to why I think it's genuine. I may be wrong, but whatever. Perps use the curiosity of children against them, especially with boys, who have a natural curiosity about the male organ and what it means to their identity. This is used by perps to get "in the door" so to speak, then the abuse starts from there. Also the attention seeking is a cry from a child for help with processing information that is beyond their age-capacity to process. It is a desire to be understood, for people to pay attention and look close, and to help process the information and affect the necessary transformation so the real work of growth, which is being short-changed, can continue. I see all this there. As well as the desire for suicide, which is also a desire for transformation. A touching story I could say lots more about.

But I don't think it's linkable in the article. I'm not going to remove it, but it would be better linked from his userpage. There may be other options, we'll see. --DanielCD 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I'm only dropping in occasionally lately, but saw your note. Thanks for the encouragement. Joey Q. McCartney 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bold suggestion

Hello Herostratus, : ) I made a bold suggestion on Child sexuality article. Of course, you don't have to agree with this brilliant ideas! I do think it is worth discussion. FloNight talk 13:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lolicon et al images

My biggest problem was a misunderstanding. When you said I will delete... I had assumed you were sysop or higher flagged and were going to delete them out of process. Since we do not suffer from copyright paranoia I believe this to be rash and uncalled for. Even if something was a copyright violation you should at least let other people that understand our policies comment on it (and people on the articles talk page are not likely candidates of people that understand the policies), especially with images as we cannot restore them. I have no problem with them being up on IFD or WP:Copyright problems. kotepho 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking

Why did you blank these pages? User talk:XavierVE, User:XavierVE. Just because a user is "inactive" doesn't seem like a good reason to blank their pages. -Will Beback 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't heard about his threat. -Will Beback 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Parox wasn't a troublemaker and didn't ask for any of that. I found him to be very even-tempered. He was actually a decent editor until the little "box" event. After that he kinda went ape-shit. But there are plenty of others out there who are worse. It's kind of a "has been" kinda deal. --DanielCD 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any users still self-identifying as peds out there? --DanielCD 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, and as far as I'm concerned they're entitled to if they want to. At any rate, no fellow editor should be abused, if someone wants to bring an editor up on any charges, fine, but otherwise... Herostratus 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --DanielCD 13:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he blanked the page himself. He's only here to monitor the PeeJ article. I don't think he cares much for anything else at Wikipedia. I think you were right to bring up the issue. --DanielCD 20:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He blanked them because I asked him to. Told him to, actually. Herostratus 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to the board

I sen this email to the board last night, about 11:30 pm UK time, although I have as yet had no response, but I thought I'd copy you in.

To the board,

I'm currently an admin on the english wikipedia and there's a thorny issue currently being debated which possibly you might like to look at.

Images which are computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have been deemed illegal by the U.S. PROTECT Act of 2003, although that act may run counter to the Constitution, as previously ruled by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Online Protection Act.

However, although Wikipedia is not censored, are such images ones with which Wikipedia should be associated?

This is a somewhat divisive issue, which takes into account various side questions which detract from the main issue, and some of us feel this might be best decided by the board of the foundation, since a strong consensus on the issue may be hard to achieve.

I hope you will consider this issue and I look forward to your response.

In closing, I would like to say thank you for your time, and also thank you for affording me such a wonderful opportunity to both learn and educate through editing Wikipedia. It is a marvellous thing you have created, and I feel privileged to play even a minor role.

Hiding
[edit] dropping the other shoe

Would you mind finishing up the editing of the Pederasty in the modern world article so that we can retire the tag you placed there? Thanks, Haiduc 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you

Thank you for taking it to the WikiEn list for discussion. I fully support Sam's action. I hope this will give us some momentum for more changes that will protect the overall interest of the site. I'm going to try to gather community consensus about external links with images of children being sexually exploited and images of children engaged in sex acts. The images are illegal in some English speaking places the same as photos of child porn. And they are disgusting because they promote the sexual exploitation of children. I don't think Wikipedia should associate it's self with them. We should not give any impression that we cater to pedophiles. I removed the external link off of the Lolicon article. Of course, it was reapplied. : } I use a 1RR so the link will stay on until someone else removes it. I've stated my reasons on the talk page. Of course the usual arguments for including them appeared rebutting me. I don't know what your position on this has been in the past. I hope you will support this change now while we have some momentum for protecting the interest of WP. Again thanks for taking action. FloNight talk 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renchan link

I've removed the hyperlinking function of the renchan message board link; this was a suggestion from the mailing list, and could be a solution. The relevant post on the mailing list is http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/043256.html Hiding talk 08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding. This is very helpful. : ) Herostratus, did you see that I started the thread about external links on the email list? The email list is a good resource for us it seems. Our biggest problem has been the lack of neutral editors seeing these articles on a regular basis. For now, we have raised their profile and more active, experienced editors will look at them. Hopefully, a few of them will take an interest and become regular editors.

Herostratus, can I send you an email at the same address you use to post to the email list. Your wikipedia email is not activated and I need to talk to you about something best discussed off the site. FloNight talk 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the email list about deleting LS Studio for lack of reliable sources. I posted the same comments to to the LS Studio talk and PAW talk. Interesting discussion and some extra comments on talk from it. (Except the one person that attacked me, of course. I preety good at ignoring that kind of stuff.) I think it is a very good idea to introduce PAW on the email list. I'm also thinking about posting a personal message (not spam) on the talk page of everyone that debated the image deletion issue or commented or voted in User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006. What do you think? Most of the people commenting were very experienced. The type we need to weigh in and give opinions about what is best for the overall interest of the 'pedia. Let me know what you think. --FloNight talk 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lolicon

Herostratus:

Please do not leave threatening messages on my talk page. I don't care about your lengthy explanation, because (1) users should be able to click on links if they want to and (2) you are not an administrator.

Thanks,

Primetime 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of playing devil's advocate. Do an RFC or whatever, I'll endorse it. Med cabal might be a better choice though. Kotepho 23:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Content issues are a-ok, but yeah there is a decent backlog. RFC isn't exactly a great option either though. It isn't likely to really solve the contention, just show that one side has consensus.. maybe. Really though, at this point anything is better than edit warring. Kotepho 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warning: Blatant vandalism
Stop hand.png

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Lolicon, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. The Psycho 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, I just saw the vandalism message. I'm not going to revert it. I'll leave that to you. It is obvious from your discussion on the article talk page that your edit wasn't vandalism. Taking some abuse from other editors is necessary to make the article encyclopedic! Ask Sam. He had an Administrator behavior Rfc started on him. : ) --FloNight talk 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo, thanks. Nah, I won't revert it, I usually just leave my talk page alone. Hell, George Reeves has left me a whole archive full of stuff worse than that... Herostratus 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Lolicon: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --Primetime 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow they're coming in fast tonite. I wish he'd vandalize my userpage instead, I'm trying to run up my count on that. Herostratus 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You inferred that I'm a pedophile in the edit summary of the article "lolicon". I personally think that was a personal attack. (You have no idea who I am, anyway.) I really just have a pet peeve against censorship. Attacking sites with pedophilia on them is one thing. Attacking articles in encyclopedias that discuss pedophilia is another.--Primetime 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you can talk. I think you mean "implied" not "inferred". Yes I know about the thing about censorship. Everybody has a thing about censorship. I know what you mean. This censorship thing, it's just awful. I don't know what to do about it, myself. There's just too damn much censorship everywhere. We've got to do something about the censorship. Did I mention censorship? Because we can't have it.

At least Psycho gave me one with the white hand. Next time can I get one with a white hand? How about a white X, I don't have one of those yet tonite. Herostratus 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't like the fact that you are summarizing my arguments for me. I think that your desperate attempts to influence this discussion using all possible means (e.g., breaking up the discussion into sections) is in very bad taste. I understand that you're literally on a mission from God to remove the link, but I'm not here because God told me to. I'm here to help other people decide what to believe.--Primetime 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not sure

Hi not sure of how to contact you correctly and join PAW etc. Read your note on my page. I've lots to learn... Tony Sandel (UK time)...
[edit] Re Child sexuality

Nice work on child sexuality. JayW 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia, Kevin Brown [2]

Not all the refs are by Brown, the second is from [3] which may or may not be trustworthy. The last paragraph is out of place though. Skinnyweed 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We can infer from Kevin's case that paedosexuals are not treated equally under the law; they are not protected by anti-discrimination laws, nor are they sheltered as a "sexual orientation." It's revealing, though not very definite. We'll have a better paragraph when the Supreme Court decides whether paedosexuals deserve human rights. JayW 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child Sexual Abuse

I reverted your revert on the child sexual abuse effects section, since you gave reason for doing so. I mentioned that I planned on adding that information on the talk page to represent the other point of view a few days earlier, with no objections. So I don't think that it is appropriate to simply revert the edit. Perhaps we should discuss this on that article's talk page. Crazywolf 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rind et al

The Rind et al study is sound in its methodology. None of the critics have been able to show they aren't. However, they do an excellent job of convinving the public of whatever the public already wants to believe. Overall, the study is not the big deal people make it out to be. The problem is that there's so many people trying to use it to certain ends, regardless of whether the study actually supports those ends or not, that it has led to massive confusion like what you are experiencing. And most are happy with the confusion, because then they can just say "to hell with it" and believe what's easiest or most entertaining to believe.

As to the study, I need to go and refresh my memory a bit before I say too much. I do believe that they concluded there were instances of CSA not actually doing harm, but that may be an oversimplification. All they really did was say we need a term like Adult-Child Sex to cover such cases. It was a academic suggestion regarding terminology to describe these certain cases for specialists to refer to the cases. They absolutely made it clear that they were in no way whatsoever condoning anything. People think it should all be CSA and there should be no ACS; It's an argument about terminology. But the FACT is that there are cases where children have had sexual experience with adults and were not traumatized by it (it depends on umpteen thousand different things, such as resiliance, support of family, amount and depth of abuse, who did the abuse, feelings of betrayal, etc.) I don't know all the details, but this fact angers people and they don't want it spoken of. The actions of congress, the APA in caving to political pressure, and others were absolutely inexcusable.

No, it doesn't say that ACS is anything other than abuse. It just says there are cases where the abuse occurred and there didn't seem to be any long-term incapacitating effects. Some kids could shrug it off, but who can say how any person is going to react to a potantial trauma? Who knows who is going to lose it in a combat situation? In a hurricane, earthquake or other traumatic event? I believe it was mainly about this small suggestion regarding terminology that was meant for the academic community.

I can look it up again if you need more and I'll re-read your question to make sure I covered what I think you are asking. --DanielCD 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CSA discussion

Hi, I posted this on the CSA discussion page. But I thought you might miss it, as it is now far up on the page. Here was my reply to one of your points...

"If you actually read the Age of consent reform page, you'll see that there are many differing groups supporting abolition or reduction. Far from being right wing, most are ultra-lefties if anything. Strident right-wingers typically favour ALL sex (except that within marriage) being taboo or even illegal. Where do you get the odd idea that abolition is a right-wing idea??? It's is the opposite. You could hardly call liberal lefties like Judith Levine and John Holt right-wingers..."

-Neural 12:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll pardon my insinuating myself into this discussion, but I too think the abolition of age-of-consent laws to be a cause more frequently championed by those of the left than those of the right; in my case, my advocacy for abolition is driven by my anarcholibertarianism, and the underlying impulses are surely of the classical liberal, and probably contemporary liberal, nature. This is, though, one issue that seems to divide those on the far left, especially self-styled progressives; it seems to pit, as, for example, the question of whether prostitution should be legalized or whether the dissemination of pornography should be proscribed, those who advocate for the government's staying out fully of one's personal life and inculcating no morality and the government's acting toward some broader good (an extension, essentially, of the negative liberty-positive liberty debate that proceeds apace amongst liberal thinkers). I don't imagine, though, that this is an issue my Democratic Party will take up anytime soon, and it is also very, very low on my list of government intrusions about which to be concerned (one does gather that those who think this to be an issue on which we ought to focus act self-interestedly, which is fine; I'm simply not interested in having sex with twelve-year-olds, and so I choose to focus on other issues). Joe 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] didn't realize that NPOV tag was new

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that was a new NPOV tag from you at the CP article - I didn't check the history carefully and thought it had just been sitting there. I still think (assuming the facts are accurate, which - who knows?) that the section is one of the few neutral-toned parts of the entire article.

Thanks for taking on that "definition" section. Qwasty is extremely persistent in his POV-pushing, and I've got a bit worn out. DanB†DanD 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey

I stumbled across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pedophilia, and DMAN I didn't realise how up-tight people were about it! You did well, though. smile.gif

By the way, I didn't even know you were an administrator—good thing I checked before I was going to nominate you! — $PЯINGrαgђ Always loyal! 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia activism

Just wanted to let you know I've tried to improve Pedophilia activism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. I see this page as a test of Wikipedia's ability to objectively, carefully represent mainstream views in the face of a very engaged minority. 216.104.211.5 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your edits to Paedophilia...
Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tony X Liu 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Posted by: Viridae

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:57am) *

For goodness sakes, ArbCom, ban Herostratus now and let us be rid of his filth and idiocy.

I had been trying to figure out if there could be a less sordid explanation compatible with the circumstances he described, however he seems to have forfeited that possibility by claiming the whole thing was a twisted joke on his part.

I suspect he may be reading this thread, as this comment appears to be in light of my previous analysis:
QUOTE
For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published after 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oddly on his user-page he actually had written "periodicals published before 1960", so I don't know what to make of it.

Personally I'd change the ban reason to "trolling" and let historians decide whether it refers to past or present.

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:49pm) *

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

You're suggesting some sort of consistency that has never existed.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 24th February 2010, 5:20am) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:49pm) *

So about the fucking arbcom (well, they were here just a moment ago) at a minimum I thought they (or Jimbeaux) would summarily de-sysop for self-unblocking; I know both like to do so for far less.

You're suggesting some sort of consistency that has never existed.

Oh I think it's consistent enough all right. Administrator: can do no wrong, so let's wait to hear his side of the story and believe it no matter how incredible it may appear. Regular editor: can't be trusted, so who gives a fuck what their excuse is.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:06pm) *

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=343196318&oldid=302022861, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28682.

Why is his account still active?

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim, especially when accompanied with statements like "Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960."

Here, Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&oldid=195411538. Master sleuth EricBarbour might be able to tell us about how Herostratus was lying when he made that claim.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 24th February 2010, 5:38am) *

Oh I think it's consistent enough all right. Administrator: can do no wrong, so let's wait to hear his side of the story and believe it no matter how incredible it may appear. Regular editor: can't be trusted, so who gives a fuck what their excuse is.

Here you're implying that arbcom is consistently inconsistent, which still gives give them too much credit.

See also: • Rumsfeld, D. (2002) Known Unknowns. Paladin Press. p. 6.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:07am) *

Around that time, http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x987433236 and http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1880505389/Man-accused-of-child-porn-remains-in-jail was going on.
Nothing stopping you from calling Judge Flynn or reporter Kerri Roche,
and asking them if Mr. Aucoin was editing Wikipedia.

As usual, your irresponsibility is matched only by your incompetence.

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:25am) *

If Hero is simply a joker/smartass, (and he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/hate_mail), then fine.
Let him explain why he spent so much time on the Pedophilia Article Watch.
I'd prefer to see HIS explanation, not Everyking or Baseball Bugs "rationalizing".

Because he wants to remove pro-pedo advocacy?

Clue: adding the "sexual violence" template to [[pedophilia]], and edit-warring with pro-pedo accounts to remove "consensual" from the definition of statutory rape are not typical pro-pedo POVs.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:59am) *

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim...

why, just imagine the edit conflicts!

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 5:30pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.


Some diffs, as well as the contribs in general. In general it was the scale of contribution to an incredibly distasteful subject.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:34am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 5:30pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.


Some diffs, as well as the contribs in general. In general it was the scale of contribution to an incredibly distasteful subject.

Show me some of these diffs.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE

Herostratus unblocked himself. Should the block be reimposed? I thought you were not allowed to unblock yourself, even if you'd blocked yourself accidentally. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

* The Arbitration Committee is indeed aware of this situation. No, the block should not be reinstated. We will look at the behaviour of all parties involved in this situation. Risker (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

* Thanks for your reply, Risker. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical.

Don't be surprised if someone quietly archives or deletes that discussion,
and Arbcom pretends it never happened.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(One @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:59pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:06pm) *

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=343196318&oldid=302022861, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28682.

Why is his account still active?

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim, especially when accompanied with statements like "Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960."

Here, Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&oldid=195411538. Master sleuth EricBarbour might be able to tell us about how Herostratus was lying when he made that claim.

What kind of "joke" was that? Claiming to have been in an "incident" which had him court ordered to stay off of computers? I don't "get it". What was that joke supposed to have been a reference to?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:41am) *

Show me some of these diffs.


Show me some of the diffs that got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Morrell_Maddie blocked after 3.5 months of inactivity.


Posted by: One

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:04pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:41am) *

Show me some of these diffs.


Show me some of the diffs that got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Morrell_Maddie blocked after 3.5 months of inactivity.


I will as soon as you show me the block log where I whipped out my ban hammer on that user. I can't explain the acts of other people, and if you would like such an explaination, you should ask the person responsible. My guess is that you disclosed the account.

Anyhow, I'm not asking Viridae for anything unreasonable here. I would have imagined that an admin would actually look at the contributions before blocking an alleged illness-inducing pro-pedo account. I've not done a thorough check, but from what I've seen, it actually appears to be anti-pedo.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:36pm) *


Anyhow, I'm not asking Viridae for anything unreasonable here. I would have imagined that an admin would actually look at the contributions before blocking an alleged illness-inducing pro-pedo account. I've not done a thorough check, but from what I've seen, it actually appears to be anti-pedo.

I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Viridae&page=user%3AHerostratus&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 the block was for the self-admitted proxy editing (which is now claimed to be a joke - though I don't think that many people are laughing).

Posted by: One

Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.

Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:00pm) *

Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.

Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?

Yes, I agree that is an exceptional claim that does need to be backed up with proof.

Yes, it's probably a joke and the account is not compromised, but it's an exceeding bad joke and in poor taste given the subject area they focus on.

Perhaps he would be better received on a website designed for such tomfoolery.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:04pm) *

Perhaps he would be better received on a website designed for such tomfoolery.

Wikipedia is muy serious. It's not like they allow just anyone to edit, y'know.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:59am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:06pm) *

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=343196318&oldid=302022861, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28682.

Why is his account still active?

Have you heard of jokes? When someone claims, for example, that they have to print out and submit contributions via paper, most people would realize that it's a preposterous claim, especially when accompanied with statements like "Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960."

Here, Herostratus http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&oldid=195411538. Master sleuth EricBarbour might be able to tell us about how Herostratus was lying when he made that claim.


Great the idiot makes ground clutter that operates to provide cover to pedophiles. Charming sense of humor. The responsible thing at this point is to suspend his account, make him get IRL vetting and background check at his own expense and only let him return upon clearance. You cause the confusion you take steps to clear it up. You don't allow unresolved risk, especially to children. Next time he flies maybe he will think of some analogous humor at the airport and see where that gets him.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:00pm) *

Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.

Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?

He might have been serious about the child porn conviction (though obviously the "majordormo" statement was a humorous exaggeration).

But if there was no incident with the police, the "joke" made no sense. As for him claiming it was a joke, sure the "I'm banned from reading periodials etc etc" crap was - but that doesn't mean his "incident" didn't really happen, does it?

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:04pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:00pm) *

Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.

Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?

Yes, I agree that is an exceptional claim that does need to be backed up with proof.

Yes, it's probably a joke and the account is not compromised, but it's an exceeding bad joke and in poor taste given the subject area they focus on.

Perhaps he would be better received on a website designed for such tomfoolery.

Does anyone know what the joke was referring to? I still haven't heard that.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:00pm) *

Look, I'm not the brightest guy


evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

Gotta love that traditional American lynch-mob mentality.

Gotta put an end to that millennia-old activity of adults working collaboratively with kids, especially the ones being accused with bugger all proper evidence, you know, the sort of evidence that doesn't rely on synthesis, supposition and rumour.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 26th February 2010, 12:36pm) *

Gotta love that traditional American lynch-mob mentality.

Gotta put an end to that millennia-old activity of adults working collaboratively with kids, especially the ones being accused with bugger all proper evidence, you know, the sort of evidence that doesn't rely on synthesis, supposition and rumour.


It is not a rumor. It is the person's own statement. It may be "humor" or not but once he exercises the incredibly bad judgment to cause confusion in this area the burden is on him to clear things up. This means, at a minimum, providing a background check disproving the the criminal sanctions. This will invariably mean demonstrating his IRL identity and showing his ownership of the account. It also opens the door to a hard review of his editing history for pedophile POV. Even if he clears these hurdles he should be de-admined for dangerously bad judgment.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766 do for a start?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766 do for a start?

Only if you are proposing to also ban Everyking.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 2:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766 do for a start?

I have as much a fondness for grammar as anyone, but banning someone for "there" vs. "their" is simply draconian.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(One @ Fri 26th February 2010, 2:40pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766 do for a start?

Only if you are proposing to also ban Everyking.

Sounds good to me, why not? At very least there's no way he should have his hands anywhere near admin tools.

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 26th February 2010, 11:36am) *

...

Anyone who openly encourages pedophiles to edit on Wikipedia should, at very least, not be allowed to be an admin (and I'd prefer an outright ban). It doesn't matter if he's actually a pedophile or just a braindead idiot like Everyking - statements like that are damaging to the site's reputation. You might as well let members and admins openly state that they are Neo-Nazis or that they support Al-Quaida while you're at it. They can still be productive editors, right? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 26th February 2010, 10:36am) *

Gotta love that traditional American lynch-mob mentality.

Gotta put an end to that millennia-old activity of adults working collaboratively with kids, especially the ones being accused with bugger all proper evidence, you know, the sort of evidence that doesn't rely on synthesis, supposition and rumour.

Baxter, is that you again? hrmph.gif

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 26th February 2010, 11:50pm) *
...is that you again? hrmph.gif

No, that's WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who in my experience has generally been one of the saner voices on Wikipedia (he was booted off for failing to show due deference to Chillum, not for any POV pushing or the like).

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 6:09pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 26th February 2010, 11:50pm) *
...is that you again? hrmph.gif
No, that's WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who in my experience has generally been one of the saner voices on Wikipedia (he was booted off for failing to show due deference to Chillum, not for any POV pushing or the like).

Got himself banned for persistently trying to insert info about a stupid rumor that Richard Gere stuffed a gerbil up his ass? Doesn't sound that sane to me. wacko.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th February 2010, 12:09am) *

No, that's WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who in my experience has generally been one of the saner voices on Wikipedia (he was booted off for failing to show due deference to Chillum, not for any POV pushing or the like).

Failing to show due deference to Chilum can hardly be considered sane, at least not if you don't want to be shown the door at wikipedia. It's no wonder that so many administrators are voting against the CDA proposal, including Chillum, as they know they'd have to watch their step if something like it was ever put in place. As for WebHamster, it's a crying shame that he was chased away by the civility poilice, who apparently fall over in a swoon every time they're told to "fuck off".

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sat 27th February 2010, 12:21am) *
Got himself banned for persistently trying to insert info about a stupid rumor that Richard Gere stuffed a gerbil up his ass? Doesn't sound that sane to me. wacko.gif

I think you may be misunderstanding. Either that or you're terminally stupid.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 5:09pm) *
No, that's WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who in my experience has generally been one of the saner voices on Wikipedia (he was booted off for failing to show due deference to Chillum, not for any POV pushing or the like).

Ah. Well, a new Britishism-using member with a bondage gere gear avatar, is bound to draw notice.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th February 2010, 2:55am) *

Ah. Well, a new Britishism-using member with a bondage [/s]gere[/s]gear avatar, is bound to draw notice.


He's the webmaster for http://www.thehamsters.co.uk, but is mostly known on wikipedia for keeping an image of a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waxed_pudenda.jpg on his user page.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(One @ Fri 26th February 2010, 8:40pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 26th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:27am) *

I had a flick through his contribs. Like Haiduc, makes me feel slightly ill.

Did you actually look at the diffs, or just the articles? If you actually looked at the diffs, can you point to some that make you ill? I'm just not seeing it.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766 do for a start?

Only if you are proposing to also ban Everyking.

Really? You honestly can't see the difference between "We should allow criminals to participate providing they don't act inappropriately, breach the terms of their probation and/or place the site in legal jeopardy" and "We should actively recruit sex offenders to write on sex-related topics because they can share their experiences"?

Posted by: One

As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 3:29pm) *
As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?

Personally, I don't think they're equivalent, though I suppose one might argue that EK's position is bad enough to warrant not allowing him to have admin rights. EK seems to think "we might as well let them participate if they behave themselves, otherwise they'll just do it secretly and we'll be worse off." Herostratus, OTOH, has essentially said "they know a lot about the subject and should therefore be welcomed and encouraged, and if they show pro-pedo bias, we'll just 'thrash that out,' i.e., no big deal."

I'm not trying to defend EK's position on the issue, which I do believe to be seriously wrong and irresponsible, but I don't think he's shown any kind of enthusiasm for allowing such people to participate, whereas Herostratus evidently has. EK is just reflecting the more radical and/or permissive end of the free-culture libertarian outlook, and he also admitted that he might be wrong, or at least not qualified to decide such matters.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm) *

As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?


Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Want another? Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Ask the Perverted Justice people http://www.wikisposure.com/Tyciol.
I can't think of a better example of an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tyciol&diff=315670446&oldid=315670115 Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.


I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm) *

As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?


Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.


It is not about the fucking articles, moron. It is about the potential to exploit children.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Want another? Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Ask the Perverted Justice people http://www.wikisposure.com/Tyciol.
I can't think of a better example of an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tyciol&diff=315670446&oldid=315670115 Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.


I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.


Don't forget AnotherSolipsist (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18883.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Want another? Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Ask the Perverted Justice people http://www.wikisposure.com/Tyciol.
I can't think of a better example of an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tyciol&diff=315670446&oldid=315670115 Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.


I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.


Don't forget AnotherSolipsist (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18883.


Let's note that all three of these editors are blocked.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:41pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Want another? Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Ask the Perverted Justice people http://www.wikisposure.com/Tyciol.
I can't think of a better example of an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tyciol&diff=315670446&oldid=315670115 Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.


I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.


Don't forget AnotherSolipsist (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18883.


Let's note that all three of these editors are blocked.


It took a long time though before they were blocked.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:17am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm) *

As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?


Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.


It is not about the fucking articles, moron. It is about the potential to exploit children.


Any adult has the potential to exploit children, is it up to you to decide which ones might?

I don't suppose you've been watching the movie Minority Report recently have you?

Mention paedo and there's a knee-jerk reaction every time. It's this over-the-top behaviour that takes away kid's childhoods. Every year kids get younger when they lose their innocence and learn that the world is a terrible place. And, Sunshine, it's not the paedos who are doing that... it's their paranoid parents jumping up and down every time it's mentioned in the media.

The fear of something is always far worse than the actual something, especially to the millions of kids who never come close to a molester's clutches.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 27th February 2010, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:17am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:09pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm) *

As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?


Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.


It is not about the fucking articles, moron. It is about the potential to exploit children.


Any adult has the potential to exploit children, is it up to you to decide which ones might?

I don't suppose you've been watching the movie Minority Report recently have you?

Mention paedo and there's a knee-jerk reaction every time. It's this over-the-top behaviour that takes away kid's childhoods. Every year kids get younger when they lose their innocence and learn that the world is a terrible place. And, Sunshine, it's not the paedos who are doing that... it's their paranoid parents jumping up and down every time it's mentioned in the media.

The fear of something is always far worse than the actual something, especially to the millions of kids who never come close to a molester's clutches.


99% of strangers online and offline are likely not child molesters. It is true that parents put fear of strangers into children to the point no one trusts anybody. As a child gets older, parents should be teaching their children that most people are not so bad, but train them in how to identify bad situations with strangers. Parents, guardians, and teachers do have a responsibility to monitor children's use of the Internet, including Wikipedia. I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.

The big problem with Wikipedia is when is it fairly obvious someone is up to no good. For example, AnotherSolipsist liked to hang around editors he knew were minors and he was persistent in editing pro-pedophilia articles. I would think that would send alarms to anyone.

Fair or not, Wikipedia editors are judged by the majority of their contributions. If I see someone editing nothing but pedophilia articles, that puts up a red flag. If I see that same editor hanging around editors I know or strongly suspect to be minors, that sends up another red flag (and most certainly an e-mail to ArbCom or someone like Alison or Lar). If you're going to edit in controversial or taboo areas like pedophilia, you had best explain your goals thoroughly and stay on the straight and narrow lest someone... anyone... misunderstands your motives. Life's not fair, but them's the breaks.

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. dry.gif hrmph.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 27th February 2010, 9:28pm) *
The big problem with Wikipedia is when is it fairly obvious someone is up to no good. For example, AnotherSolipsist liked to hang around editors he knew were minors and he was persistent in editing pro-pedophilia articles. I would think that would send alarms to anyone.

That's sort of what I was going to say. Part of the reason for what appears to be (and often is) an hysterical witch-hunting mentality is that when an obvious case comes along and they do nothing, it just sends people into a tizzy. They start thinking, "if I only show them a few more diffs, or make a few more shrill pronouncements, or make a few more nasty remarks about someone's diseased, withering brain, THIS time they'll figure it out." But it rarely works out that way. I'm not sure there's a solution for it that would satisfy everyone, though...

I guess I could also make some sort of remark about the difference between showing tolerance for people who are trying to deal with their sociopathic tendencies on the one hand, and inviting them into your super-fun party and telling them to go introduce themselves to the kids who are all down in the basement playing X-Box on the other, but to even mention that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis#Paralipsis, and nobody wants paralipsis.

And that article has a number of grammatical errors, I might add.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 27th February 2010, 9:57pm) *
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:17am) *
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:09pm) *
QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm) *
As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&action=historysubmit&diff=40282523&oldid=40224766, and if so, why?

Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.
It is not about the fucking articles, moron. It is about the potential to exploit children.
Any adult has the potential to exploit children, is it up to you to decide which ones might?

I don't suppose you've been watching the movie Minority Report recently have you?

Mention paedo and there's a knee-jerk reaction every time. It's this over-the-top behaviour that takes away kid's childhoods. Every year kids get younger when they lose their innocence and learn that the world is a terrible place. And, Sunshine, it's not the paedos who are doing that... it's their paranoid parents jumping up and down every time it's mentioned in the media.

The fear of something is always far worse than the actual something, especially to the millions of kids who never come close to a molester's clutches.


You know this guy said he was under criminal sanctions to keep off the internet right? No reason to make judgments just because a person does that, is there? I would be very happy if WP collaborated with an organization expert in child protection so no one had any reason to listen to anons on internet forums. But WP isn't known to play well with others.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:15pm) *

You know this guy said he was under criminal sanctions to keep off the internet right?

You mean the edit(s) he made to his user page? You know you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet, right?

There might be something to be said about this guy's sense of humor (or perhaps even something to be said about how it relates to his ability to be an administrator), but no post in this thread is getting anywhere near what could be described as insightful analysis. Sigh.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 6:41pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Want another? Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Ask the Perverted Justice people http://www.wikisposure.com/Tyciol.
I can't think of a better example of an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tyciol&diff=315670446&oldid=315670115 Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.


I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.


Don't forget AnotherSolipsist (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18883.


Let's note that all three of these editors are blocked.

And according to you, you don't believe they should have been blocked right?

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:44pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:15pm) *

You know this guy said he was under criminal sanctions to keep off the internet right?

You mean the edit(s) he made to his user page? You know you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet, right?

There might be something to be said about this guy's sense of humor (or perhaps even something to be said about how it relates to his ability to be an administrator), but no post in this thread is getting anywhere near what could be described as insightful analysis. Sigh.

I don't think anyone here has said they have concrete proof that his guy is a pedophile or a convicted sex offender. Nevertheless he definitely has a pro-pedophilia stance as evidenced by some of the diffs provided. Do you really want someone like that being an admin on your site, let alone editing at all?

Posted by: One

Your post on there/their did make me laugh, MZM. Easily the highlight of this thread.

I am sorry Everyking. I suppose that I lumped your very different arguments together because they both fail to realize that Wikipedia is a field ripe for child grooming. In other topic areas, I would agree with Herostratus that even biased experts should be welcome assuming their biases can be corrected. That's not true for pedophilia for the reason that both of you fail to appreciate.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:19am) *

And according to you, you don't believe they should have been blocked right?


I'm happy to see that they have shared your fate. yak.gif

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:36am) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:19am) *

And according to you, you don't believe they should have been blocked right?


I'm happy to see that they have shared your fate. yak.gif

OH NOES! I IZ BANNED! THAT'S AS BAD AS BEING EXCOMMUNICATED IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE!

Not. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 26th February 2010, 6:24pm) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sat 27th February 2010, 12:21am) *
Got himself banned for persistently trying to insert info about a stupid rumor that Richard Gere stuffed a gerbil up his ass? Doesn't sound that sane to me. wacko.gif

I think you may be misunderstanding. Either that or you're terminally stupid.

Seems about right to me after reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=316920388#Richard_Gere_and_the_gerbil.

And FYI, not only is that myth completely unsubstantiated, but it was stated about several other celebrities at around the same time that it was stated about Richard Gere. This is supposed to be Wikipedia, not the National Enquirer. And if this guy seriously got himself blocked over something this asinine then he doesn't have much sympathy here.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:28am) *

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. dry.gif hrmph.gif


The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP. Similar to how I have no problem with them going to the store to buy milk, or to go to the movies to watch a film or for them to go to Kelkoo to find out the price of a pair of trainers.

A paedophile is just a sick fuck with an inability to control his or her self, but they aren't actually doing anything wrong until they break the law. Editing WP is not breaking the law and as such no-one should be castigated for it, regardless of their proclivities.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 11:47am) *
The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.


Grab a camera, walk into a bank, and start taking pictures.

Prediction: you'll be thrown out inside of minutes.

You can whine all you like about how you aren't breaking any law (as would be the case), or their rule makes "no sense", but given the context, what other reaction could you expect?

Bringing this back to the matter at hand: Wikipedia appears to have a non-trivial contingent of child editors slaving away. Allowing people who prey on kids into the arena is going to strike almost anyone with a working brain as Pretty Fucking Stupid™.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:44am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:15pm) *

You know this guy said he was under criminal sanctions to keep off the internet right?

You mean the edit(s) he made to his user page? You know you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet, right?

There might be something to be said about this guy's sense of humor (or perhaps even something to be said about how it relates to his ability to be an administrator), but no post in this thread is getting anywhere near what could be described as insightful analysis. Sigh.



Get a clue. It doesn't matter. He said it. The person who controlled the account said it. He produced the controversy. He displayed at a minimum the bad judgment of a false statement of this kind. It is his problem now. Let him demonstrated, by IRL evidence, ID confirmations and background checks that it is not true.

Get pulled over by thepolice. The police ask you if you have anything you shouldn't have on your person. You say "just an Uzi." Funny joke, but you are going to be searched at that point.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 11:47am) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:28am) *

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. dry.gif hrmph.gif


The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.


The only reason pedos edit Wikipedia is to justify and normalise their view of themselves. They are incredibly persistent and tenacious and have a store of arguments that they will edit into any pedophilia-related subject. That pedophilia means simply liking children, not wanting to have sex with them. That violence committed by pedophiles is no different from violence committed in adult heterosexual relationships. That different cultures (ancient Greek, and Islam supposedly) have had a tolerant and benign attitude to pedophilia. That pedophilia is bad, but 'pederasty' is perfectly OK.

Anyone who tries to put in material that casts any negative light upon their practice, such as th idea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=next&oldid=215154288 that "the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" is instantly reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=next&oldid=215206918 ("Inappropriate material removed to 'child abuse' page").

They combine and plot with others to get action from administrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=222250643 (now oversighted). This procures the removal of anyone who opposes their perverted and abnormal views http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APhdarts . Or block anyone who complains about it ("harassment").

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:29pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 11:47am) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:28am) *

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. dry.gif hrmph.gif


The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.


The only reason pedos edit Wikipedia is to justify and normalise their view of themselves. They are incredibly persistent and tenacious and have a store of arguments that they will edit into any pedophilia-related subject. That pedophilia means simply liking children, not wanting to have sex with them. That violence committed by pedophiles is no different from violence committed in adult heterosexual relationships. That different cultures (ancient Greek, and Islam supposedly) have had a tolerant and benign attitude to pedophilia. That pedophilia is bad, but 'pederasty' is perfectly OK.

Anyone who tries to put in material that casts any negative light upon their practice, such as th idea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=next&oldid=215154288 that "the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" is instantly reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=next&oldid=215206918 ("Inappropriate material removed to 'child abuse' page").

They combine and plot with others to get action from administrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=222250643 (now oversighted). This procures the removal of anyone who opposes their perverted and abnormal views http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APhdarts . Or block anyone who complains about it ("harassment").


I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.

I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:34pm) *


I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

[...]
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.


"The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." (quoted from a pedo message board).

QUOTE
By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.


I have already said that it works the other way round. Those who try and impose neutrality are quickly hounded and blocked.

Unfortunately this has now been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=222250643

But I can tell you what it says. It is a discussion where two SPA's are discussing how to prevent an 'attack' on one of their favourite articles. One says "I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

An indef block of the anti-SPA followed within hours.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:41pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:34pm) *


I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

[...]
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.


"The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." (quoted from a pedo message board).



"Platform"? So what? They are the most hated sub-species of human on the planet. What do they need a platform for? And even if they do get one who the fuck is going to vote for them?

Frankly I'd far prefer they out themselves attempting to gain a "platform". I'm all for people knowing who their local paedo is, what I'm against are the low-brow, mouth-breathing fuckwits camping outside their doors with banners and broken bottles.

If there's a paedo living in a house on my street and I know he's there, then that works for me. I want to know where the fuckers are, not frighten them underground where they'll get up to god knows what.

QUOTE

QUOTE
By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.


I have already said that it works the other way round. Those who try and impose neutrality are quickly hounded and blocked.

Unfortunately this has now been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=222250643

But I can tell you what it says. It is a discussion where two SPA's are discussing how to prevent an 'attack' on one of their favourite articles. One says "I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

An indef block of the anti-SPA followed within hours.


I can't say I disagree, but that's just as likely to apply to, say, a Croatian as it is to a paedophile POV pusher.

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:15pm) *

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.


Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:15pm) *

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.


Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.


Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 4:33pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:15pm) *

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.


Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.


Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

If by "brainiac"you mean socially inept... The shared collaborative project is central to pedophile grooming and is available on WP in a way not possible on FB or MySpace etc. The most valuable form of communication a pedophile has to offer how "special" and "more mature than other people your age." WP is a compost heap designed to fertilize this kind of abuse.

BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 9:44pm) *

BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.


Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 2:02pm) *
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 9:44pm) *
BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.
Go fuck yourself.

Yep, you're a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23858 Wikipedian. tongue.gif

Posted by: Mike H

QUOTE
What kind of "joke" was that? Claiming to have been in an "incident" which had him court ordered to stay off of computers? I don't "get it". What was that joke supposed to have been a reference to?


Probably a reference to Anthony Stancl, who posed as a female only to blackmail and rape his classmates. He was sentenced this week to 15 years in prison. Google "Anthony Stancl" and read the GQ article...it truly is sickening.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Mike H @ Sun 28th February 2010, 9:12pm) *
Probably a reference to Anthony Stancl, who posed as a female only to blackmail and rape his classmates. He was sentenced this week to 15 years in prison. Google "Anthony Stancl" and read the GQ article...it truly is sickening.

And if you need more ugly examples of social websites serving as hellmouths......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier. The "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11162121/from/RSS/". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10272868/. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v-myspace. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=3842143. http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206104562. http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081021chicago.htm. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11708746/. And there are plenty of others.

How long until someone uses Wikipedia for this "purpose"?
Or has it happened already, and we don't know?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:33pm) *
...But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

You don't believe in erring on the side of caution, then? hmmm.gif

And if these kids aren't easily led, what are they doing on Wikipedia in the first place? Kids get involved with Wikipedia because they want to impress people with how smart they are, whether or not they actually are smart, and they aren't getting enough praise and support from their parents or teachers in that regard. I'd agree that the vast majority of them are too smart to allow themselves manipulated by pedophiles simply for praise (unless they actually want to be), but the minority (?) that aren't so smart probably seem like perfect targets.

I'd also agree that even having the #1 Google result for "pedophilia" be favorable towards them isn't likely to change society's general view of what they do, but I don't believe that's their main PR objective. Their PR objective on WP and similar sites seems to be to steer closeted pedophiles to their various "support networks" (incl. various pedo-specific websites), where there are various people to help them with their self-esteem problems, and whatever else it is they do, a lot of which is (I assume) not particularly nice at all.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:33pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 8:15pm) *

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.


Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.


Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *


Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27474&st=40&p=206521&#entry206521,
John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

...

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=User%3AMarlais

But no need to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

(The facts being that the userpage was edited only twice, in 2004, and on error - the person meant to post to Marlais' talk page so blanked it with the second edit)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 1st March 2010, 12:53am) *

QUOTE(Mike H @ Sun 28th February 2010, 9:12pm) *
Probably a reference to Anthony Stancl, who posed as a female only to blackmail and rape his classmates. He was sentenced this week to 15 years in prison. Google "Anthony Stancl" and read the GQ article...it truly is sickening.

And if you need more ugly examples of social websites serving as hellmouths......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier. The "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11162121/from/RSS/". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10272868/. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v-myspace. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=3842143. http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206104562. http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081021chicago.htm. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11708746/. And there are plenty of others.

How long until someone uses Wikipedia for this "purpose"?
Or has it happened already, and we don't know?


Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk. That should help me find this post with our fickled search function. Excellent post Eric. I appreciate the work in assembling these links.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 1st March 2010, 2:04pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=User%3AMarlais

But no need to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

(The facts being that the userpage was edited only twice, in 2004, and on error - the person meant to post to Marlais' talk page so blanked it with the second edit)

Students will note that John V. had "oversight" access at the time of that edit, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:John_Vandenberg@enwiki.

I realize this doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't disproven anything.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 1st March 2010, 9:54am) *

Students will note that John V. had "oversight" access at the time of that edit, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:John_Vandenberg@enwiki.

I realize this doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't disproven anything.

Yes, I suppose he could've oversighted the whole lot.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 1st March 2010, 6:59am) *

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome. biggrin.gif


Actually "smart" is the same as possessing good judgement, perhaps you're confusing it with "intelligent"?

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 1st March 2010, 12:49pm) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 1st March 2010, 6:59am) *

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome. biggrin.gif


Actually "smart" is the same as possessing good judgement, perhaps you're confusing it with "intelligent"?

Most Wikipedians aren't that "smart" then, fair enough.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:


Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 12:02pm) *

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Herostratus_.2F_Viridae
  • "I was only having a joke"
  • "He has exercised poor judgement"
  • "They are blatant trolls and have been blocked indefinitely"
  • "You are a Wikipedia administrator so 'admonishment' will suffice"
Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?


And what do they have to prove that his statement was a mere joke? Did he provide a background check or police clearance? Some of the details of his claim to be under criminal sanctions didn't add up but it clear he is a liar, one way the other or perhaps in a mixed fashion with actual criminal sanctions but lying about the details. He may be a convicted pedophile laughing his ass off that he told them and they still let him continue. Once a person makes deliberate false statements it taints everything they say afterward. ArbCom is completely unskilled in handling evidence of any kind.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 12:02pm) *

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?


No, but I sometimes use the cognate "adminish" as an adjective.

For example —

"Man, he's so dense, he's positively adminish."

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 12:02pm) *

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Herostratus_.2F_Viridae
  • "I was only having a joke"
  • "He has exercised poor judgement"
  • "They are blatant trolls and have been blocked indefinitely"
  • "You are a Wikipedia administrator so 'admonishment' will suffice"
Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?


And what do they have to prove that his statement was a mere joke? Did he provide a background check or police clearance? Some of the details of his claim to be under criminal sanctions didn't add up but it clear he is a liar, one way the other or perhaps in a mixed fashion with actual criminal sanctions but lying about the details. He may be a convicted pedophile laughing his ass off that he told them and they still let him continue. Once a person makes deliberate false statements it taints everything they say afterward. ArbCom is completely unskilled in handling evidence of any kind.

I actually agree with you on this one. I don't understand why Arbcom are handling this one so ineptly, and why there's this "admonishing" of Viridae. Police are routinely called out to "firearm incidents" which turn out to be kids messing in the street with realistic toy guns; that the whole thing turns out to be a misunderstanding doesn't mean that the witnesses who call the police, nor the police themselves, are acting incorrectly when they stop the kids; Viridae should be commended for prompt action against an apparent security breach, not admonished because Arbcom can't bear to admit that one of their precious administrators is at best acting like a juvenile asshole. SirFozzie appears to be the only Arb there who actually understands the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Viridae plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

Posted by: The Joy

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 1:21pm) *

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall


What the fuck are you people waiting for?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 1:25pm) *

What the fuck are you people waiting for?


Full-Width Image

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:21pm) *

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall

He's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Admin_criteria, though, so whatever you say he can just adjust the criteria so as not to fit. (Under Elonka's criteria, he'd be recalled instantly, FWIW; SirFozzie and Hersfold are both calling for his desysopping and they qualify as "Senior Wikipedians" under the convoluted rules she made up.)

Posted by: MZMcBride

It seems the Arbitration Committee has mixed up "admonished" and "cautioned." In a situation like this, it's probably prudent to caution Viridae to be more careful in the future—he did block an administrator, after all, and that is usually step one in creating a nasty mess. However, there's nothing in this incident that rises to the level of an admonishment. Not for Viridae, at least.

Posted by: Mike R

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 11:02am) *

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:19pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Viridae plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

It does. The hoplessly inept Coren displaying just how hopelessly inept he is once again.

QUOTE(Mike R @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 10:20pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 11:02am) *

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

Do Mormons use the word "redact" as well? I see so many unfamiliar words on wikipedia. What does "civility" mean, for instance?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 12:02pm) *
The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Herostratus_.2F_Viridae
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:19pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Viridae plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

Bloody twats.

Hopefully, Viridae learned something from this mess.

Basically, that Wikipedia is a joke, Arbcom is a joke, and that despite all the work he's done for WP,
they would cheerfully throw him to the wolves in an instant. (And lie about it after the fact.)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 4th March 2010, 12:08am) *
What does "civility" mean, for instance?
It means you said something an admin didn't like, so he can block you.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 4th March 2010, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(Mike R @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 10:20pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 11:02am) *

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

Do Mormons use the word "redact" as well?

If by "Mormons" you mean "lawyers," yes.

If, say, JzG had blocked a user for (1) a bad joke (2) indefinitely, (3) without warning, (4) without talk page explaination, (5) for reasons that were demonstrably false, I doubt WR would have the same reaction. That said, I think self-unblocking should be a bright-line rule for desysopping (and that's on top of the idiocy of the joke), so I'm surprised on both sides.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:47pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:21pm) *

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall

He's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Admin_criteria, though, so whatever you say he can just adjust the criteria so as not to fit. (Under Elonka's criteria, he'd be recalled instantly, FWIW; SirFozzie and Hersfold are both calling for his desysopping and they qualify as "Senior Wikipedians" under the convoluted rules she made up.)

He has now, upon being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus#Recall_Criteria, agreed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stanistani#Recall_Criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz/Recall

Posted by: MZMcBride

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=347761195&oldid=347742004:

QUOTE

Viridae blocked a user (1) based on a joke, (2) indefinitely, (3) without question or warning, (4) without talkepage explaination, and (5) as a "tax evasion" pretext for a suspicion that was manifestly false, if the admin had ever bothered to actually check. An admonishment is well-deserved. Don't do this.

That said, I thought unblocking yourself was one of our few bright-line rules. If you were hit with a bad block (which Herostratus was), you should remove it through request like everyone else. If Herostratus is so uninformed on our current practices, desysop is prudent.

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

(1) Based on a joke made by whom? It's been firmly established that, at best, the joke wasn't fully understood to everyone. And it was the person being blocked who was making the joke (in rather poor form).

(2) Indefinitely. This is where you can be sure there's a red herring. "Oh my God, he blocked him indefinitely!" That shit's, like, permanent, dude. Or something. It's not like we do in nearly every case of emergency blocking.

(3) If you believe an account is compromised (which was the suspicion here), you don't warn or question, you simply block. Still not seeing anything out of the ordinary here.

(4) Without talk page explanation. And this is where we hit another sure-fire red herring. Viridae http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=346021130&oldid=341103568, informing him that Viridae had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=346020827&oldid=346018902. In that noticeboard post, he explains his reasoning for the block. So much for it being unexplained.

(5) This is the only valid part of your post.

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves. Herostratus saw an obviously bad block and overturned it. It's the same thing that many others have done. Off the top of my head, here's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMisza13&year=2008&month=1&tagfilter=&limit=2 doing it after an obviously bad block. So much for that argument as well.

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=347845755&oldid=347845503, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 4th March 2010, 11:43pm) *

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves.

For the curious: http://p.defau.lt/?NTfjNbQ4U0acDcKmpH7dTQ

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 4th March 2010, 9:05pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 4th March 2010, 11:43pm) *

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves.

For the curious: http://p.defau.lt/?NTfjNbQ4U0acDcKmpH7dTQ

I remember this one. She was blocked when Robdurbar (T-C-L-K-R-D) aka 'Wonderfool' went on the rampage with a sysop bit;

| unblock | 20070419101352 | Riana | fucking ridiculous |

And VoC - here's one for you;

| unblock | 20090907040004 | Gamaliel | administrator fail |

evilgrin.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Viridae

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 5th March 2010, 9:29am) *

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)


When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 5th March 2010, 7:52pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 5th March 2010, 9:29am) *

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)


When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.


WP os definitely a habit. One that needs breaking.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

(4) Without talk page explanation. And this is where we hit another sure-fire red herring. Viridae http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=346021130&oldid=341103568, informing him that Viridae had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=346020827&oldid=346018902. In that noticeboard post, he explains his reasoning for the block. So much for it being unexplained.

Look at the times. This was just short of three hours after the block. He only made the post because Herostratus had the idiocy to unblock himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viridae&diff=346018166&oldid=345560943 on his talkpage for an explaination. Rather than reply with an explaination, Viridae then (only then) started the thread was to get support to have him blocked again, not to discuss and review his block, which had already been overturned.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=347845755&oldid=347845503, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

Not true. Giano and others are claiming that this admonition is because the blocked user was an admin. Many of the comments make clear that this interpretation is wrong. They are concerned mostly that the block was done without independent analysis and without care.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

No problem. I recuse when I'm acting as an advocate. I believe that any advocacy should be on-wiki so that it can be publicly examined. Some arbitrators in the past did not think this necessary, and freely advocated from the list.

As someone in favor of transparency (for ArbCom, anyway), I hope that you can appreciate this.

Posted by: Viridae

Since when was a talk page explanation required? If it had been more ambiguous than "user has appeared to clearly admit sharing his account" I would have given a reason. As it was, I considred it pretty fucking obvious considering that poor taste joke went up not two weeks before.

You know what? I dont actually give a shit either way.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(One @ Fri 5th March 2010, 8:50am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=347845755&oldid=347845503, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

Not true. Giano and others are claiming that this admonition is because the blocked user was an admin. Many of the comments make clear that this interpretation is wrong. They are concerned mostly that the block was done without independent analysis and without care.

I'm with Risker that it doesn't make much difference at all who the blocked party is or what user rights they have. Where we diverge is why this particular bad block rises to the level of an admonishment. It was a bad block, it was overturned, and, at least from my perspective, everyone had moved on... until ArbCom came in with motions.

There's a very real risk of pissing off dedicated contributors without any benefit in cases like this.

QUOTE(One @ Fri 5th March 2010, 8:50am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

No problem. I recuse when I'm acting as an advocate. I believe that any advocacy should be on-wiki so that it can be publicly examined. Some arbitrators in the past did not think this necessary, and freely advocated from the list.

As someone in favor of transparency (for ArbCom, anyway), I hope that you can appreciate this.

I think that's very fair. I might go further to say that due to the inherent extra access by Arbitrators, no advocacy would be preferred. However, if there is going to be advocacy, on-wiki is assuredly better than off-wiki in cases like this.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Funny that this has degenerated into a discussion of the rights of Wikipedians. No regard is now given to the child protection issues. I believe Eric has indicated that Herostratus' edit history is replete with pro-pedophile edits. Nobody seems inclined to take a hard look at this. He has been required to provide no verification of his legal status and is taken at his word despite deliberate falsehoods. This is now about posting explanations of blocks, admin self-unblocking, and ArbCom admonishments. Viridae did a good thing here and quibbling over a block or other wonkery dilutes the point. The child protection concerns relating to Herostratus need to be followed up.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 5th March 2010, 12:02pm) *

Funny that this has degenerated into a discussion of the rights of Wikipedians. No regard is now given to the child protection issues. I believe Eric has indicated that Herostratus' edit history is replete with pro-pedophile edits. Nobody seems inclined to take a hard look at this. He has been required to provide no verification of his legal status and is taken at his word despite deliberate falsehoods. This is now about posting explanations of blocks, admin self-unblocking, and ArbCom admonishments. Viridae did a good thing here and quibbling over a block or other wonkery dilutes the point. The child protection concerns relating to Herostratus need to be followed up.

You really think nobody has taken a look at Herostratus' edits? If there's evidence of pro-pedophile edits or advocacy, feel free to point them out.

Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that EricBarbour is full of shit and can be (and should be) ignored in the future. He's largely to blame for creating this mess, built up on assumptions and misunderstandings without any basis in fact.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 4:43am) *

I'm with Risker that it doesn't make much difference at all who the blocked party is or what user rights they have. Where we diverge is why this particular bad block rises to the level of an admonishment. It was a bad block, it was overturned, and, at least from my perspective, everyone had moved on... until ArbCom came in with motions.

There's a very real risk of pissing off dedicated contributors without any benefit in cases like this.

This is a very fair point. Such admonishments are capricious. Quite often, arbitrators don't think that a situation even deserves comment. You can see this view clearly in NYB's comments.

The problem is that ArbCom is often concerned about the appearance of cover-up. When users are demanding judgment, we are in no position to say "move along now." Maybe we should say "no action necessary" more often, but in this case it was decided they should weigh in. When they weigh in, they're committed to examining all parties involved in the exchange, and fault was found here on all parties.

I agree with you that this could have been treated as a no harm no foul kind of thing, but it was apparently thought that findings would reduce drama. If there were going to be findings, I thought these were reasonable.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(One @ Fri 5th March 2010, 6:26pm) *
I agree with you that this could have been treated as a no harm no foul kind of thing, but it was apparently thought that findings would reduce drama. If there were going to be findings, I thought these were reasonable.

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

Posted by: Zoloft

So... should editors try to recall Herostratus or not? I think his odd 'joke' and his immediate unblocking of himself probably merit it, but I'd hate to see it fail, 'cause that would cement his grasp on the tools.

Opinions?

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 5th March 2010, 8:38pm) *

So... should editors try to recall Herostratus or not? I think his odd 'joke' and his immediate unblocking of himself probably merit it, but I'd hate to see it fail, 'cause that would cement his grasp on the tools.

Opinions?

No. It would just be seen as an attempt to cause that thing most wikipedia apologists abhor, "dramah". Nothing else matters to the wikiwhores except to keep the fires damped down; reform is impossible, justice is unnecessary ought to their refrain.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 5th March 2010, 3:32pm) *

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

The potential for drama and disruption is much higher and there's a presumption that administrators and other users with "higher" user rights are generally behaved.

This has been a main sticking point for you for a long time, though I'm not sure why that is. From what I've read in your comments, you have this idea that all users should be treated and judged equally, though I can't find any basis for this in the real world or on Wikipedia. If a district attorney is considering an indictment, I think he or she would be far more hesitant when the suspect is the mayor than when the suspect is simply an average citizen. That's normal. It may not be ideal, but I don't know why it's something to make a fuss over or constantly point out.

Further, the extra user rights, power, or whatever else may end up being very disadvantageous to the person being scrutinized, as their actions will often be judged more harshly than someone else's. More and more, we've been seeing administrators thrown out for conduct that normal users would be left alone over. This is particularly true in cases of off-site "misconduct," as yanking the administrator bit is the only means of petty recourse.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 9:05pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 5th March 2010, 3:32pm) *

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

The potential for drama and disruption is much higher and there's a presumption that administrators and other users with "higher" user rights are generally behaved.

Not by me there isn't.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 5th March 2010, 9:05pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 5th March 2010, 3:32pm) *

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

This has been a main sticking point for you for a long time, though I'm not sure why that is. From what I've read in your comments, you have this idea that all users should be treated and judged equally, though I can't find any basis for this in the real world or on Wikipedia. If a district attorney is considering an indictment, I think he or she would be far more hesitant when the suspect is the mayor than when the suspect is simply an average citizen. That's normal. It may not be ideal, but I don't know why it's something to make a fuss over or constantly point out.

You are perfectly at liberty to ignore basic human rights and freedoms, but I will simply draw your attention to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Where in that does it say that mayors or other elected officals should be treated differently from other citizens?

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 5th March 2010, 2:52am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 5th March 2010, 9:29am) *

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)


When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

Yeah I know - God created man and woman for the sole purpose of editing His Free Encyclopedia 9 hours a day, 7 days a week. When one of God's Children claims to be "tired" of editing His Encyclopedia, that is a sign that the End Times are upon us. confused.gif

QUOTE(One @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 11:56pm) *

If, say, JzG had blocked a user for (1) a bad joke (2) indefinitely, (3) without warning, (4) without talk page explaination, (5) for reasons that were demonstrably false, I doubt WR would have the same reaction.

If the user had made pro-pedophilia comments on WP and a "joke" about being arrested and court ordered to stay off the internet, then I doubt anyone would care if the blocking admin was JzG, Viridae, or Brad Pitt for that matter.

And either way, Viridae did leave an explanation and the block was reversed immediately, so no harm done and much ado about nothing. And now Viridae is getting slammed just for making the best call he could. Sad.

Posted by: Zoloft

Well, there are a handful of people still mumbling for Herostratus's bit to be yanked.

When I wake up on Saturday, I am going to flip a coin (an old silver dollar).

If Liberty shows when I remove my hand, I will start the recall process myself.

If not, I will probably just spend the morning cooking up a pot of marinara sauce and making some pasta for later.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Fri 5th March 2010, 10:20pm) *

If the user had made pro-pedophilia comments on WP and a "joke" about being arrested and court ordered to stay off the internet, then I doubt anyone would care if the blocking admin was JzG, Viridae, or Brad Pitt for that matter.
Contrary to EricBarbour's claims, he's not a pedophilia POV-pusher. Years ago he stated that they are "very welcome" to edit, but it appears his own editing was not that of an advocate; he seems to have focused his own editing on removing subtle pedophile POV. This was not a well-researched block. Shot from the hip, no attempt to aim was made until it was challenged.
QUOTE

And either way, Viridae did leave an explanation and the block was reversed immediately, so no harm done and much ado about nothing.
You mean, he left an explaination on ANI 3 hours later, after the subject inadvisedly used self-help to reverse the block.

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Fri 5th March 2010, 10:20pm) *

You mean, he left an explaination on ANI 3 hours later, after the subject inadvisedly used self-help to reverse the block.

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

QUOTE

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

Durova blocked the user as a sockpuppet but admitted afterwards in private that she had no evidence of it, she "just knew" it was a sock because it was editing "too well for a new user". I don't see much similarity between the incidents. Viridae was going by what the account itself posted on its userpage.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sat 6th March 2010, 6:20am) *

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

I endorse this summary, and hope doing so does not make me a republican.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(One @ Fri 5th March 2010, 11:23pm) *
Contrary to EricBarbour's claims, he's not a pedophilia POV-pusher. Years ago he stated that they are "very welcome" to edit, but it appears his own editing was not that of an advocate; he seems to have focused his own editing on removing subtle pedophile POV. This was not a well-researched block. Shot from the hip, no attempt to aim was made until it was challenged.

I've looked over his contribs a bit more thoroughly, and I guess I'm forced to agree with you. I still don't think he should have admin rights, but of course I'm going to say that about most WP admins... Nevertheless, if Viridae erred at all in this case, it was on the side of caution, and he shouldn't be blamed for that.

I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

I'd also agree that we tend to assume, perhaps wrongly, that someone who deals almost exclusively (OK, about 80 percent) with one topic area must, almost by necessity, have some sort of underlying advocacy agenda. I'd also hasten to point out that this isn't because we're bad people who constantly jump to conclusions; it's because in large numbers of cases (perhaps even the vast majority), this ends up being exactly what's going on.

One interesting incident that I found with Herostratus involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ren%C3%A9_Guyon_Society on something called the René Guyon Society (T-H-L-K-D) - supposedly a pro-pedo organization, but actually a hoax perpetrated by one person. He begins by stating: "As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed." He's challenged on this point by anti-humanity zealot JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who essentially says that if Herostratus (or whoever) can't come up with a "reliable source" to prove that the organization didn't exist, it must therefore be worthy of inclusion. At the time (Feb. 19, 2008), of course, JoshuaZ had lost his own admin rights just two weeks earlier due to his use of multiple accounts to influence deletion discussions, and this was just five days after evidence of this appeared here on WR. But as a result of his intervention, the article was kept, and still exists to this day.

Meanwhile, Herostratus voted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex_%282nd_nomination%29, and while he was "on the fence" WRT the (successful) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BoyChat (he actually voted "Hmmmmm"), he did make some valid points in favor of deleting it. The actual WP pedophiles were quite adamant about keeping both of those, apparently.

Anyway, it's an interesting problem, distasteful though it all may be. The main point is that it wouldn't take an anti-WP fire-breather like Mr. Barbour or even myself to mistake Herostratus for a "notorious Pedophilia editor" - most people would have done that, and it takes a fair amount of reading through some extremely unpleasant content to finally conclude that he actually believed Wikipedia could, and should, try to be "neutral" on the subject without actually advancing the pro-pedophile agenda. That's not something that most sane people would really want to bother doing, even if they're WP admins like Mr. Viridae.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 6th March 2010, 12:35am) *
I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

Whether Hero is a genuine pedophile or not, you have to admit, his editing patterns and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=195829932&oldid=195411538 don't exactly make for happy reading, much less "encyclopedia material". And it really gets me that he refuses to explain why he does these things--most WP editors of his obsession level are usually crystal-clear in terms of their motivations. This guy, on the other hand, is one of the most obscure and obtuse admins I've ever seen. Even Irishguy (T-C-L-K-R-D) wasn't that bad.

I'm really damned sorry that you WP lovers don't want to accept this, but I do not think an "encyclopedia" of any value will result from the current obscure-obtuse World Of Warcraft management style. Just to say "sure, pedophiles are acceptable as editors" leaves the door open for POV-pushing--something that WP has repeatedly shown itself to have great difficulty controlling. There aren't enough volunteers who have transparent, honest motives to clean up after the POV pushers, of whatever type. And there never will be, with raving freaks like SV, Will Beback, Elonka, Chillum, Hu12, Raul, Hersfold, Tiptoety, Nawlinwiki, and several more, allowed to have admin powers and to run it their way.

I would fire everybody. ALL of them. And put in new management, who would then install flagged revs AND delete any BLPs or other items that are at all questionable. Then they can let the general public back in to write new material---but with edit controls in place.

But, of course, fuck me. I'm not a "privileged insider". I don't have the "trust of the little God-Boy-King". As long as it keeps running like a half-assed imitation of the Bohemian Grove, it will remain broken.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 6th March 2010, 4:18am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 6th March 2010, 12:35am) *
I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

Whether Hero is a genuine pedophile or not, you have to admit, his editing patterns and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=195829932&oldid=195411538 don't exactly make for happy reading, much less "encyclopedia material". And it really gets me that he refuses to explain why he does these things--most WP editors of his obsession level are usually crystal-clear in terms of their motivations. This guy, on the other hand, is one of the most obscure and obtuse admins I've ever seen. Even Irishguy (T-C-L-K-R-D) wasn't that bad.

I'm really damned sorry that you WP lovers don't want to accept this, but I do not think an "encyclopedia" of any value will result from the current obscure-obtuse World Of Warcraft management style. Just to say "sure, pedophiles are acceptable as editors" leaves the door open for POV-pushing--something that WP has repeatedly shown itself to have great difficulty controlling. There aren't enough volunteers who have transparent, honest motives to clean up after the POV pushers, of whatever type. And there never will be, with raving freaks like SV, Will Beback, Elonka, Chillum, Hu12, Raul, Hersfold, Tiptoety, Nawlinwiki, and several more, allowed to have admin powers and to run it their way.

I would fire everybody. ALL of them. And put in new management, who would then install flagged revs AND delete any BLPs or other items that are at all questionable. Then they can let the general public back in to write new material---but with edit controls in place.

But, of course, fuck me. I'm not a "privileged insider". I don't have the "trust of the little God-Boy-King". As long as it keeps running like a half-assed imitation of the Bohemian Grove, it will remain broken.



You may not be a a "privileged insider" but you are certainly trusted by me to interpret editing patterns. This is especially important to me because for the most part my wading through extensive editing history days are over. This allows me spend about 1/3 the time I did on WR a year ago. I rely on contributors to the Review to do this work and I trust you much than say MZM who still requires a great deal of reconstruction. If you and Somey feel the guy's edit history is not outright pro-pedophile, or no more than providing cover to pedophiles through extensive and obtuse edits and cryptic explanations like the "joke," I will depend on that judgment. Still due diligence requires that this editor provide IRL police clearance to demonstrate he is not under the criminal sanction he himself claimed.

I suppose the subtext of the joke is something like hey look the criminalization of pedophiles is oppressive, it is a witch hunt, and might even extend to a fine citizen like myself. Essentially some kind of statement of solidarity with his brother Wikipedian pedophiles. His "constructive engagement" of pedophiles is certainly enough to de-adim or even ban him. The only sane policy for a project that encourages collaboration between children and adults is to make every decision in a manner that would isolate them and eliminate their participation.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sat 6th March 2010, 1:20am) *

QUOTE(One, the squirrel @ Fri 5th March 2010, 10:20pm) *

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

Durova blocked the user as a sockpuppet but admitted afterwards in private that she had no evidence of it, she "just knew" it was a sock because it was editing "too well for a new user". I don't see much similarity between the incidents. Viridae was going by what the account itself posted on its userpage.

Durova also came to her self-appointed conclusions via a dialogue (or was it a soliloquy?) on a secret, "invitation only" mailing list that was hosted on a Wikia, Inc. server. That, to me, adds another layer of nefariousness to the wiki-witch's poor judgment, as opposed to Viridae who (as has been mentioned) simply erred on the side of professional caution.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 6th March 2010, 8:35am) *

One interesting incident that I found with Herostratus involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ren%C3%A9_Guyon_Society on something called the René Guyon Society (T-H-L-K-D) - supposedly a pro-pedo organization, but actually a hoax perpetrated by one person. He begins by stating: "As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed." He's challenged on this point by anti-humanity zealot JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who essentially says that if Herostratus (or whoever) can't come up with a "reliable source" to prove that the organization didn't exist, it must therefore be worthy of inclusion. At the time (Feb. 19, 2008), of course, JoshuaZ had lost his own admin rights just two weeks earlier due to his use of multiple accounts to influence deletion discussions, and this was just five days after evidence of this appeared here on WR. But as a result of his intervention, the article was kept, and still exists to this day.

Wow. As if we didn't know, AFD is hash.

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 6th March 2010, 7:32am) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Sat 6th March 2010, 6:20am) *

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

I endorse this summary, and hope doing so does not make me a republican.

Yeah, correct summary. "Block first, ask questions later," contra Giano, is not good administrative practice.

Posted by: herostratus

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

And a bunch of others of you should think before you talk. Your idea of "research" leaves a lot to be desired. I like http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23280&st=60&p=161139&#entry161139 "The admin who did the most talking was Herostratus..." Gee, I was only trying to move heaven and earth to get this (prohibition of minors posting contact info) accepted. Of course I had the most posts. And http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23395&st=20&p=163183&#entry163183. Jack-A-Roe a pedophile? Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

In fairness, several of you did come to my defense in the cause of sanity, although it was usually a little half-hearted.

But whatever. All in good fun.

EXCEPT those fools who talked about trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY. If you're going to lynch someone, try not to lynch the wrong people. (Hopefully, you can all see now why I do hide my identity and post little true personal information. Because of YOU.)

Anyway, FWIW, my take on the whole thing (basically a repeat of the above) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Holy_Jumping_Catfish!, and an explanation of why I edit in this area is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Pedophilia_and_Me.

I wrote these basically for you, so I guess you can feel flattered and attended to, just as I felt flattered and attended to by your poring over the details of my edit histories. Gee I didn't know I was so important.

I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, but if you allow yourself to be led by the Eric Barbours of the world you're never going to get anywhere.

Cheers, Herostratus

P.S. You know, things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site, and others. Thank you. But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth.

Well, no. Eric called you a "notorious pedophilia editor" - big difference! wtf.gif Furthermore, less of the 'you people'; WR is far from monolithic.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

No, I don't.

Whether you're obsessed with pedophilia for good reasons or bad,
I still think you're a freak. Your jokes are ill-considered and not funny at all,
and your dedication to keeping yourself fully anonymous is bizarre. Why must
you do that? Did it ever occur to you that someone might think you're
hiding something very bad and real in your personal makeup or history?

I think I speak for most people here, when I say that your deep and long
involvement with the Pedophilia Article Watch is weird. It would be
understandable if you were known to be a professional in mental health,
an advocate for child protection, a good parent, or someone else personally
interested in discouraging WP's use as an informational playground for sex offenders.

But until you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Pedophilia_and_Me to being opposed to pedo-positive information on WP,
I had no idea who (or what) you were. And that idiotic joke about "The Incident"
made a lot of people wonder what the hell you were trying to do or say.

Nobody laughed.

Are you really so damned clueless that you will sit there and deny that anyone
could take exception to your activities since 2006? Most WR people have
realized that one of Wikipedia's major flaws is its openness to role-players, who
manipulate others and wear masks. So far, you've been a down-the-line
perfect example of someone who is using Wikipedia to push an agenda that
is incompatible with a "neutral" publication, while posting obtuse and irrational
attempts to be "humorous", in order to mask your activities.

You said it yourself:
QUOTE
Of course, slanted editing is never welcome. But in this area it's especially problematical, because:

* This is a subject where we really don't want people to get the wrong ideas. It's not good if people get the wrong ideas about, say, the history of the Slovak language, but misinformation on this subject could cause real-world harm.
* This is a potential political problem for the Wikipedia. We don't want outside parties to get the idea that we present slanted information on this subject or countenance over-emphasis on fringe ideologies in this area . This could be quite a disaster.

So that is why I edit in this area. Solely because I care about the Wikipedia and wish to defend it.

Well, you managed to give the wrong impression, and make yourself look slanted.

Congratulations, twit.

If you had said as much back in 2006, I would not regard you as a possible
slanted editor today. Wikipedia has entirely too damned many freaks running
around loose as it is (why do you think this forum has become the leading
Wikipedia criticism site? Because the regulars here have mostly fallen afoul of
some of those freaks).

You don't need to add to the noise floor, by posting coy little jokes to your userpage
that practically invite misunderstanding. Fools keep telling me that Wikipedia is an
"encyclopedia", yet they run it more like a 4chan subboard.

Posted by: MZMcBride

Eric: That's quite a long way of saying "I was wrong and I apologize."

Posted by: GlassBeadGame


Is this the guy that made the unfunny "joke" about being under some kind of criminal sanction for pedophilia? If so then remember that the any responsible project would have required he show a police clearance before ever being permitted to do anything on the site again. Saying "ha ha...only kidding" really doesn't cut it. Thanks for demonstrating how truly irresponsible Wikipedia is.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *
Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?
Yes, Wikipedia seems to manage it on a larger scale and on a daily basis, to much more pernicious effect.
QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *

But whatever. All in good fun. ...EXCEPT ... trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY.
I would say the lesson you can take away is that if you edit in a way that -- even for a moment -- leaves open the possibility you might be a pedophile, people will try to hunt you down. That is as it should be. There is no inherent right to anonymity, on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *
I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, ... things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site ... But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.
In a word, no. One of the fundamental aspects of much of the criticism of Wikipedia here is that Wikipedia's internal systems for self-correction do not work. Our members here range from WP agents provocateurs to wiki-apologists to those who think Wikipedia can be fixed, to those who think Wikipedia should be destroyed by any means necessary. But it can be inferred that they post here because communication on Wikipedia has failed. If you don't like being called names, stop pretending to be an encyclopedia editor.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 26th May 2010, 5:40pm) *
QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm) *
Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?
Yes, Wikipedia seems to manage it on a larger scale and on a daily basis, to much more pernicious effect.

Hyperbole aside, Gomi is manifestly correct on this point.

It is not uncommon for people to labor under lamentable misconceptions for a time, before they revise their understanding of difficult issues. In all my decades as a science educator, I have never met more intractably and intransigently self-deluded people than on Wikipedia.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 10:55pm) *

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

And a bunch of others of you should think before you talk. Your idea of "research" leaves a lot to be desired. I like http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23280&st=60&p=161139&#entry161139 "The admin who did the most talking was Herostratus..." Gee, I was only trying to move heaven and earth to get this (prohibition of minors posting contact info) accepted. Of course I had the most posts. And http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23395&st=20&p=163183&#entry163183. Jack-A-Roe a pedophile? Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

In fairness, several of you did come to my defense in the cause of sanity, although it was usually a little half-hearted.

But whatever. All in good fun.

EXCEPT those fools who talked about trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY. If you're going to lynch someone, try not to lynch the wrong people. (Hopefully, you can all see now why I do hide my identity and post little true personal information. Because of YOU.)

Anyway, FWIW, my take on the whole thing (basically a repeat of the above) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Holy_Jumping_Catfish!, and an explanation of why I edit in this area is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Pedophilia_and_Me.

I wrote these basically for you, so I guess you can feel flattered and attended to, just as I felt flattered and attended to by your poring over the details of my edit histories. Gee I didn't know I was so important.

I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, but if you allow yourself to be led by the Eric Barbours of the world you're never going to get anywhere.

Cheers, Herostratus

P.S. You know, things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site, and others. Thank you. But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.

Well dude, you're a grown man who writes Wikipedia articles about kids' cartoons and "child sexuality". If you don't agree that that is creepy, then there's something wrong with you. And if you're not a pedophile, then you have nothing to hide, so if someone Googles for you, then I guess that's karma. Find something better to do with your life than spend all day at home watching "Codename Kids Next Door" and writing about child sex on WP. Phuckin' weirdo.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/kids-next-door.php

Posted by: SuaveArt

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 26th May 2010, 5:38pm) *

Well dude, you're a grown man who writes Wikipedia articles about kids' cartoons and "child sexuality". If you don't agree that that is creepy, then there's something wrong with you. And if you're not a pedophile, then you have nothing to hide, so if someone Googles for you, then I guess that's karma. Find something better to do with your life than spend all day at home watching "Codename Kids Next Door" and writing about child sex on WP. Phuckin' weirdo.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/kids-next-door.php


So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(SuaveArt @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:00am) *
So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

Not to answer for him, but I'll guess he's feeling chagrinned.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(SuaveArt @ Thu 27th May 2010, 7:00am) *
So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

And which sniveling, lying, backstabbing SPI regular are you?

(Never mind. Nobody here really cares who you are. Because you're nobody, outside WMF servers.)

Posted by: Viridae

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 7:15am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.


There is a lot of social pressure to show kindness to pedophiles and even pedophile posers on WP.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 5:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

You really should not apologize to him. It will only encourage his demented behaviour.

I notice that he hasn't commented here since that first one. Woops, the little man was
called on his bullshit by several people, and now he won't come back.

I see he's expanded his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus, complete with links to the Arbcom flap
and this thread. And he's gone right back to editing and reverting,
just as if nothing happened. What a smug douche.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:15pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 10:33pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:15pm) *
QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.
Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.
Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton%40global&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the http://www.NetKnowledge.Org Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 10:33pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:15pm) *
QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.
Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.
Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton%40global&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the http://www.NetKnowledge.Org Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.

Sorry, I forgot that you ended up with a global block. If you are no longer going to evade the indef block on en.wv, then I can ask for the global block to be removed as well.
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:56am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 4:20am) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 10:33pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:15pm) *
QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 28th May 2010, 8:02am) *
Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.
Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.
Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton%40global&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the http://www.NetKnowledge.Org Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.
Sorry, I forgot that you ended up with a global block. If you are no longer going to evade the indef block on en.wv, then I can ask for the global block to be removed as well.
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 6:50am) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:56am) *
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.

I am sure that Wikiversity can proceed without contributors who are primarily interested in the Wikipedia Ethics project, but I am shocked to see that SB_Johnny was desysopped. No wonder the Wikiversity folk are pissed off.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 4:25am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 6:50am) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:56am) *
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.
Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.
I am sure that Wikiversity can proceed without contributors who are primarily interested in the Wikipedia Ethics project, but I am shocked to see that SB_Johnny was desysopped. No wonder the Wikiversity folk are pissed off.

Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 10:46am) *

Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?

As I said in another thread, WMF projects do need to consider the ethics of projects. However the lack of ethics on English Wikipedia is not reason for Wikiversity to allow projects which lack appropriate ethical controls.
I hope that NetKnowledge will make a reasonable attempt to do the right thing in this regard.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 9:20pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 10:46am) *
Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?
As I said in another thread, WMF projects do need to consider the ethics of projects. However the lack of ethics on English Wikipedia is not reason for Wikiversity to allow projects which lack appropriate ethical controls.
I hope that NetKnowledge will make a reasonable attempt to do the right thing in this regard.

For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. The subjects of the review were invited to respond to the case studies or to write up their own alternate versions of the case studies. They were also invited to put questions to those writing up the case studies. But instead of doing that, they insisted on revising or deleting the signed submissions of others. Eventually they prevailed on Jimbo to delete the project altogether. In doing so, they demonstrated their appalling lack of ethical standards.

Note also that the members of IDCab did not extend any of those courtesies to those whom they were characterizing in WP BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, etc.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 30th May 2010, 1:56am) *

For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. ..

The proposed policy has not been ratified by the community, and it is a long way from what would be acceptable in a real university. Ethical clearance from a reputable university should be obtained, first, until Wikiversity has appropriate controls in place.

Posted by: BelovedFox

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 26th May 2010, 9:40pm) *
In a word, no. One of the fundamental aspects of much of the criticism of Wikipedia here is that Wikipedia's internal systems for self-correction do not work. Our members here range from WP agents provocateurs to wiki-apologists to those who think Wikipedia can be fixed, to those who think Wikipedia should be destroyed by any means necessary. But it can be inferred that they post here because communication on Wikipedia has failed. If you don't like being called names, stop pretending to be an encyclopedia editor.

Not exactly. Many post here because they are discussed here. When communication is not taking place on Wikipedia, it makes little sense to discuss it there, and it's not a tacit agreement that something about Wikipedia has "failed" in that realm.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sat 29th May 2010, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 26th May 2010, 9:40pm) *
In a word, no. One of the fundamental aspects of much of the criticism of Wikipedia here is that Wikipedia's internal systems for self-correction do not work. Our members here range from WP agents provocateurs to wiki-apologists to those who think Wikipedia can be fixed, to those who think Wikipedia should be destroyed by any means necessary. But it can be inferred that they post here because communication on Wikipedia has failed. If you don't like being called names, stop pretending to be an encyclopedia editor.

Not exactly. Many post here because they are discussed here. When communication is not taking place on Wikipedia, it makes little sense to discuss it there, and it's not a tacit agreement that something about Wikipedia has "failed" in that realm.


Your defense concedes too much.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 10:25pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 30th May 2010, 1:56am) *
For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. ..
The proposed policy has not been ratified by the community, and it is a long way from what would be acceptable in a real university. Ethical clearance from a reputable university should be obtained, first, until Wikiversity has appropriate controls in place.

The study project was obliged to demonstrate a higher level of ethical standards than could be found anywhere else in WikiCulture (including the rest of WV itself). What we (unintentionally) ended up demonstrating was that WikiCulture (as defined by none other than Jimbo Wales himself) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070 (even abstract theory) as "beyond the scope" of any WMF-sponsored project.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(SuaveArt @ Thu 27th May 2010, 9:00am) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 26th May 2010, 5:38pm) *

Well dude, you're a grown man who writes Wikipedia articles about kids' cartoons and "child sexuality". If you don't agree that that is creepy, then there's something wrong with you. And if you're not a pedophile, then you have nothing to hide, so if someone Googles for you, then I guess that's karma. Find something better to do with your life than spend all day at home watching "Codename Kids Next Door" and writing about child sex on WP. Phuckin' weirdo.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/kids-next-door.php


So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

Go suck off George Rekers or something, Seregain.

Posted by: herostratus

No problem, Viridae. Didn't bother me. I figured I would get blocked sooner or later - happens to the best of us. Thanks for the apology.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 1st March 2010, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 1st March 2010, 2:04pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm) *

John Vandenberg went in and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marlais&action=history Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=User%3AMarlais

But no need to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

(The facts being that the userpage was edited only twice, in 2004, and on error - the person meant to post to Marlais' talk page so blanked it with the second edit)

Students will note that John V. had "oversight" access at the time of that edit, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:John_Vandenberg@enwiki.

I realize this doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't disproven anything.


I only indef blocked.
The oversight and revision deletion tools haven't been used on that page.
There are two revisions deleted in the ordinary way.

Posted by: milowent

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:06pm) *

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=343196318&oldid=302022861, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28682.

Why is his account still active?


he even got promoted today to editor. good for him.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(milowent @ Wed 30th June 2010, 7:17pm) *
he even got promoted today to editor. good for him.

It wasn't good enough for him. He's apparently http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29926 his admin powers.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2 it.

Have a nice day. yecch.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:23am) *

QUOTE(milowent @ Wed 30th June 2010, 7:17pm) *
he even got promoted today to editor. good for him.

It wasn't good enough for him. He's apparently http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29926 his admin powers.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2 it.

Yeah, I believe that's what "promoted to editor" meant.

cf. military personnel being "promoted to civilian" or myself as a former Wal-Martyr "promoted to customer", etc.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:36pm) *
Yeah, I believe that's what "promoted to editor" meant.

I know....just can't help rubbing it in. If Durova can ban someone based on phony checkuser info, and Adambro and Brian McNeil can act like complete prats everyday and get away with it.......