FT2 defends Pedophile's "right" to edit, Uses Meta RfC to intimidate those saying it is wrong Options

[Ottava]

See here for the current drama. He wants to go at me because he doesn't like it that I pointed out that he defended pedophiles "right" to edit and in doing so pushed a fringe POV that makes him an inappropriate voice when discussing the sexual content related policies.

Notice how he tries to pretend to be a swell guy and I am so awful, where I then point out Bishonen's block of him for blatant abuse and disruption while I was one of the few trying to stop the drama. He sure likes to try and hide who he really is.

[GlassBeadGame]

See here for the current drama. He wants to go at me because he doesn't like it that I pointed out that he defended pedophiles "right" to edit and in doing so pushed a fringe POV that makes him an inappropriate voice when discussing the sexual content related policies.

Notice how he tries to pretend to be a swell guy and I am so awful, where I then point out Bishonen's block of him for blatant abuse and disruption while I was one of the few trying to stop the drama. He sure likes to try and hide who he really is.

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

[Ottava]

If someone else wants to take the lead in pointing out how an ex Arb who was removed for corruption and lying is now trying to hinder the WMF's ability to protect children, please do.

[GlassBeadGame]

If someone else wants to take the lead in pointing out how an ex Arb who was removed for corruption and lying is now trying to hinder the WMF's ability to protect children, please do.

Not a wiki-fiddler myself, but it seems to me the place to start is to address FT2's irresponsible support for pedophiles in some other time and place than the current RFC. That discussion seems to be contest between "Ottava is an asshole" and "FT2 is a pervert." When defined in these terms it is very like to be a tie game. FT2 needs to be taken on on terms more likely to result in a clean win. Besides nobody really wants to answer the call to be a part of Ottava's Personal Army.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

I'm not sure what charge needs to be led. Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

[Ottava]

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

I'm not sure what charge needs to be led. Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

You think Tyciol should be allowed to continue editing?

What about Haiduc?

[A Horse With No Name]

FT2 needs to be taken on on terms more likely to result in a clean win. Besides nobody really wants to answer the call to be a part of Ottava's Personal Army.

Now, maybe one of our resident tubbies can play Sancho? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Milton Roe]

FT2 needs to be taken on on terms more likely to result in a clean win. Besides nobody really wants to answer the call to be a part of Ottava's Personal Army.

Now, maybe one of our resident tubbies can play Sancho? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Why not? You've been doing his Rocinante for long enough. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Somey]

...Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

Reasonable Wikipedian, you mean? I suspect most people who haven't been inculcated/indoctrinated into the WP Way of Doing Things™ would tend to agree with Ottava, particularly if they happen to be parents of young-ish children. They might not agree with his tone or even his methods, but they'd probably agree with him "in principle," at least.

Personally, I don't think WP'ers should feel obligated to seek out background info elsewhere on other WP'ers when those other WP'ers say or do something questionable with respect to child-sexuality-related articles or whatever, though it would be nice if they would, so that people like Ottava (or me, for that matter) won't have to make that choice and go to all that trouble themselves (or ourselves, as the case may be). But at the very least, WP'ers should never, ever actually ignore solid evidence from other websites that indicates one of theirs is a pedophile or pedo-advocate - that's just common sense, seems to me.

[A Horse With No Name]

Why not? You've been doing his Rocinante for long enough. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Touché, Monsieur Pussycat! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

I'm not sure what charge needs to be led. Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

You think Tyciol should be allowed to continue editing?

What about Haiduc?

WP should have and enforce rigorously policies that protect children from pedophiles. I'm external to Wikipedia and want less and less to do with that internal workings of that unpleasant place. At least one of those "editors" has been identified by an outside advocacy group (albeit somewhat troubled itself) as presenting a risk to children. It would be better if WMF would employ responsible child advocacy agencies as watchdogs. In the meantime I would criticize the presence of inappropriate editors without supporting the revenge mechanics of efforts of the like of Ottava. Child protection should not be a community activity in any event. It needs to be pursued on a board level and enforced by true agents of WMF and not left to the whims of "contributors." Even when Ottava has the right message he is the wrong messenger.

[SB_Johnny]

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

Even when Ottava has the right message he is the wrong messenger.

The problem is that no one in their right mind (i.e., a sane person) would bother investing the time, energy, and emotion. The lunatics really are running the asylum, and any non-lunatic who tries to make a difference either gets frustrated, or goes bonkers themselves. I don't think change from the inside is feasible.

[Ottava]

Child protection should not be a community activity in any event. It needs to be pursued on a board level and enforced by true agents of WMF and not left to the whims of "contributors." Even when Ottava has the right message he is the wrong messenger.

I'm the only one who was willing to challenge the WMF executive when she backed down from enforcing our standards. I also stood up to people who were using Board members to justify corruption. Few people are willing to risk such things, and, as you noticed, it was used to justify keeping me blocked while saying I was given only one "appeal" per six months, which clearly has no basis in the original ruling.

You take what you can get, no? But seriously, if someone -else- is willing to step in, please do. I'd like to be a silent coward like everyone else.

[Sxeptomaniac]

...Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

Reasonable Wikipedian, you mean? I suspect most people who haven't been inculcated/indoctrinated into the WP Way of Doing Things™ would tend to agree with Ottava, particularly if they happen to be parents of young-ish children. They might not agree with his tone or even his methods, but they'd probably agree with him "in principle," at least.

Not really. I've been a little too close to some real-life sex offender witch-hunts to feel comfortable with anything that gets too close to making it a permanent stigma. Innocent people get caught in Ottava's type of hysteria. Where does it stop? That's what bothers me about Ottava's position: I don't think he understands the concept of a measured response.

Personally, I don't think WP'ers should feel obligated to seek out background info elsewhere on other WP'ers when those other WP'ers say or do something questionable with respect to child-sexuality-related articles or whatever, though it would be nice if they would, so that people like Ottava (or me, for that matter) won't have to make that choice and go to all that trouble themselves (or ourselves, as the case may be). But at the very least, WP'ers should never, ever actually ignore solid evidence from other websites that indicates one of theirs is a pedophile or pedo-advocate - that's just common sense, seems to me.

I'm not advocating ignoring solid evidence, especially if it relates to activity on WP, but I definitely don't believe it's grounds, in and of itself, for any action. Their edits, particularly if they overlap with topics related to sex or children, should be examined (very, very closely), but it's unlikely to be an issue if their edits are unrelated to such topics. If their edits/actions on WP are questionable, then I'm all for taking action (as some did with Haiduc, eventually). However, booting anyone other editors were able to dig up dirt on would not be right.

[taiwopanfob]

I'm not advocating ignoring solid evidence, especially if it relates to activity on WP, but I definitely don't believe it's grounds, in and of itself, for any action. Their edits, particularly if they overlap with topics related to sex or children, should be examined (very, very closely), but it's unlikely to be an issue if their edits are unrelated to such topics. If their edits/actions on WP are questionable, then I'm all for taking action (as some did with Haiduc, eventually). However, booting anyone other editors were able to dig up dirt on would not be right.

The damage they can inflict is way out of proportion to their frequency of occurrence in the population. There are so few of them, in fact, that to throw the lot out without much further consideration is the best plan of action for at least two good reasons:

0. It's the inherently stable, low-energy position. No one needs to waste examining their edits "very, very closely". Also nipped in the bud are the drama-attractors like wiki-trials and the like, should someone notice something untoward.

1. The trivial loss in talent (if any) by summary dismissal of these people will be easily made up for by increases elsewhere due to increased trust of the environment. (Sweep the few criminals from the park and many, many, more people will start bringing their families for picnics again.)

Honestly, that you are even entertaining these folk with dialog and debate is excellent evidence that you are far, far too gullible for your own good. You are being conned, and conning yourself as well. AGF has it's limits, and you are all bending over backwards to accommodate ... who?

[Sxeptomaniac]

The damage they can inflict is way out of proportion to their frequency of occurrence in the population. There are so few of them, in fact, that to throw the lot out without much further consideration is the best plan of action for at least two good reasons:

0. It's the inherently stable, low-energy position. No one needs to waste examining their edits "very, very closely". Also nipped in the bud are the drama-attractors like wiki-trials and the like, should someone notice something untoward.

I fail to see what is "low-energy" about digging up dirt from around the internet. I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

1. The trivial loss in talent (if any) by summary dismissal of these people will be easily made up for by increases elsewhere due to increased trust of the environment. (Sweep the few criminals from the park and many, many, more people will start bringing their families for picnics again.)

Kicking out shady characters and criminals is one thing; summarily booting any suspected "pedophiles" is a whole different matter.

Honestly, that you are even entertaining these folk with dialog and debate is excellent evidence that you are far, far too gullible for your own good. You are being conned, and conning yourself as well. AGF has it's limits, and you are all bending over backwards to accommodate ... who?

And thinking that shooting from the hip will bring back the sunshine and rainbows is your own brand of self-con. These are people. Sometimes sick and twisted ones who don't belong, sometimes ones who made a mistake or misspoke at some point, and sometimes innocent. The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

[taiwopanfob]

The damage they can inflict is way out of proportion to their frequency of occurrence in the population. There are so few of them, in fact, that to throw the lot out without much further consideration is the best plan of action for at least two good reasons:

0. It's the inherently stable, low-energy position. No one needs to waste examining their edits "very, very closely". Also nipped in the bud are the drama-attractors like wiki-trials and the like, should someone notice something untoward.

I fail to see what is "low-energy" about digging up dirt from around the internet. I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

Then I guess you'll have to be careful? I know, this may sound a bit difficult for a project that is notorious for its fast and loose play with facts about people's lives, but hey, ya gotta learn sometime, eh? How ironic that you people will do all you can to fuck up anyone else -- "digging around the internet for dirt"(!) -- but woe to him who tries to screw around with a Wikipedia Editor!

1. The trivial loss in talent (if any) by summary dismissal of these people will be easily made up for by increases elsewhere due to increased trust of the environment. (Sweep the few criminals from the park and many, many, more people will start bringing their families for picnics again.)

Kicking out shady characters and criminals is one thing; summarily booting any suspected "pedophiles" is a whole different matter.

Typical for a wikipedian, you read too much into the analogy, thus missing the point.

Honestly, that you are even entertaining these folk with dialog and debate is excellent evidence that you are far, far too gullible for your own good. You are being conned, and conning yourself as well. AGF has it's limits, and you are all bending over backwards to accommodate ... who?

And thinking that shooting from the hip will bring back the sunshine and rainbows is your own brand of self-con.

Your reading comprehension problems are yours alone to solve.

These are people.

Yes, they are. And you don't want them anywhere near your project as long as you cater to children. So enact sane policy and get on with it.

Sometimes sick and twisted ones who don't belong, sometimes ones who made a mistake or misspoke at some point, and sometimes innocent. The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

As soon as you wipe the crocodile tears from Wikipedia's face re: BLP's, I might take some of this twaddle more seriously. But even then, that is unlikely: kick the bums out. It is what every other venue that attracts kids would do. You think www.webkinz.com is holding meetings about this subject, managers and other people worrying about how "they are people who made some mistakes" and the like? Pull your head out of your wiki-ass and look around the real world.

[Somey]

I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

First of all, don't call them "pedophiles" - come up with some sort of code word, Wikipedians are good at that. Second, there's nothing stopping Wikipedia from doing this stuff in private online venues - sure, there will be leaks, but leaks are a far cry from blaring it all over heavily-watched pages like AN/I and Jimbo's talk page. Third, aren't we talking about open-and-shut cases? If we're talking about "judgment calls," then sure, give people the benefit of the doubt, as long as it's reasonable doubt. I'm not saying WP should set up some sort of court-like thing for this; just use common sense, but don't say "things will be OK if we just watch them closely from now on" - you're doing the entire internet a disservice with that kind of talk. Remember, they're not necessarily dumber than you are.

The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

Agreed, but when you have a solid case, particularly a "self-identifier," don't get distracted or held up by people like FT2. Just ban the accounts, quietly if you prefer, and have done with it.

[Sxeptomaniac]

... (cut for brevity)

This all seems way off-topic, in addition to being a bunch of false assumptions regarding what I was saying, so I'll just skip to addressing Somey.

I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

First of all, don't call them "pedophiles" - come up with some sort of code word, Wikipedians are good at that. Second, there's nothing stopping Wikipedia from doing this stuff in private online venues - sure, there will be leaks, but leaks are a far cry from blaring it all over heavily-watched pages like AN/I and Jimbo's talk page. Third, aren't we talking about open-and-shut cases? If we're talking about "judgment calls," then sure, give people the benefit of the doubt, as long as it's reasonable doubt. I'm not saying WP should set up some sort of court-like thing for this; just use common sense, but don't say "things will be OK if we just watch them closely from now on" - you're doing the entire internet a disservice with that kind of talk. Remember, they're not necessarily dumber than you are.

I wasn't talking about open-and-shut cases, and it doesn't appear that's what Ottava's been talking about. FT2 seems to be the one advocating limiting summary blocks to the clear-cut situations.

I also didn't say "just watch" pedophiles. I was commenting that, if evidence from offsite surfaces that a WP editor might be pro-pedophile activist or some other kind of problem, then they should absolutely have their edits scrutinized to see if there is some subtle skewing going on. However, some offsite item shouldn't be enough in itself, for a variety of reasons.

The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

Agreed, but when you have a solid case, particularly a "self-identifier," don't get distracted or held up by people like FT2. Just ban the accounts, quietly if you prefer, and have done with it.

Now I'm just confused as to what you're talking about, or think you're talking about. I'll admit I didn't read the original link really closely, but FT2 clearly states he supports current WP policy on the subject early on.

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

His position, as opposed to what little I could follow of Ottava's, appears quite reasonable. I'm rather surprised how many people seem to be taking Ottava's claims at face value. Ottava is the guy who started calling someone a pervert for mentioning he has naked baby pictures of his own kids, after all.

[Somey]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" - evidence which, to be fair, could be the result of an impersonation attempt, so it would have to be evaluated very carefully. But if they're going to reject it out-of-hand just because it's "offsite," realistically that's the same as saying they don't really care. I understand why they don't want to, because it probably feels like "cyberstalking" to them and is therefore abhorrent. But "cyberstalking" doesn't always have to lead to "outing," much less "ruined lives." Sometimes it's just what you have to do to cover your own ass.

Mind you, I don't think WP'ers should be doing this sort of thing themselves either - it should be handled by people whose job it is to deal with things like this. But obviously the WMF isn't going to get involved, so that leaves youse-guys. The sad thing, as always, is that you're doing all the work and they're taking the credit, and of course getting all the money.

[taiwopanfob]

... (cut for brevity)

This all seems way off-topic, in addition to being a bunch of false assumptions regarding what I was saying, so I'll just skip to addressing Somey.

Now that Somey has essentially said the same thing I have said, albeit more politely and in more detail, I guess he too can be dismissed as "making false assumptions" and being "way off-topic"(*)?

I'll add one final option for you, one that should be obvious, but perhaps in WikiLand is not. Namely: if you don't want to Hurt The Precious Feelings of the Pedophiles By Accident ("They are people"), then you can just enact a policy that says "You must be 18/19/21 years of age to edit."

(*) I suppose the latter accusation comes from my conflating of the BLP issue. It remains a deeply offensive thing that you fucks will protect an editor against "dirt digging on the internet", but anyone else is fair game. BLP, fuck-the-children, and numerous other facets of wiki-behavior are, from my perspective, a manifestation of an underlying condition and thus can not be as cleanly separated as you may think. Why are you volunteering your time to these people?

[carbuncle]

I have skimmed the original linked discussion but I can't find the "digging around the internet" evidence people seem to be referencing here. My best guess is that Ottava has claimed somewhere (possibly in IRC chats) that there is something on the internet to suggest that an active editor is involved with advocacy of paedophilia.

Unless this is just a pointless dust-up about FT2's position on banning paedo-activists or just rehashing the Tyciol case, can someone do me a favour and post or PM me the links? Thanks.

[lilburne]

I have skimmed the original linked discussion but I can't find the "digging around the internet" evidence people seem to be referencing here. My best guess is that Ottava has claimed somewhere (possibly in IRC chats) that there is something on the internet to suggest that an active editor is involved with advocacy of paedophilia.

Unless this is just a pointless dust-up about FT2's position on banning paedo-activists or just rehashing the Tyciol case, can someone do me a favour and post or PM me the links? Thanks.

Gawd knows what its all about, but Ottava has been battling the evil-doers in the 'Controversial Content' discussion. Something along the lines of "WE MUST CLENZ TEH TEMPLE." The others in this recent punch up (the evil-doers) have opposed "TEH CLENZEZ", but they don't count as they are "EVILl DOERS" and "WHORES OF BABYLON" and "WELL KNOWN FOR IT", having "PROVIDED SUCCOUR TO TEH SODOMITES" in sundry other places.

[Ottava]

I wasn't talking about open-and-shut cases, and it doesn't appear that's what Ottava's been talking about. FT2 seems to be the one advocating limiting summary blocks to the clear-cut situations.

FT2 and I fought over Tyciol.

FT2 tried to defend Gmaxwell's actions.

Tyciol was an open and shut case of a pedophile editing Wikipedia with three years of statements about how it was "okay" to have sex with those under the age of 13.



By the way, TheDJ was making the same defense with FT2 on IRC, and Wnt was making the same defense on Wiki. It should have been obvious that my opposition was against the majority of the vocal people in the 'Controversial Content' discussion were all people who defended the "rights" of a proven pedophile to edit. Such individuals cannot be viewed as the norm when it comes to writing policies to protect children.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Sxeptomaniac]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" - evidence which, to be fair, could be the result of an impersonation attempt, so it would have to be evaluated very carefully. But if they're going to reject it out-of-hand just because it's "offsite," realistically that's the same as saying they don't really care. I understand why they don't want to, because it probably feels like "cyberstalking" to them and is therefore abhorrent. But "cyberstalking" doesn't always have to lead to "outing," much less "ruined lives." Sometimes it's just what you have to do to cover your own ass.

And that pretty much echoes where I would come out on that topic as well. Ottava's position on pedophilia is a bit hysterical, while what FT2 is advocating is far closer to a rational response. Probably not perfect, but, on the surface, hardly unreasonable.

Ottava's claims regarding what FT2 said on IRC are questionable, considering the source.

Now that Somey has essentially said the same thing I have said, albeit more politely and in more detail, I guess he too can be dismissed as "making false assumptions" and being "way off-topic"(*)?

Somey made a reasoned comment. Though there were some mistakes as to meaning, Somey was clear enough that I could make a response and clear up confusion; you weren't. Your rants were assumptions and off-topic stuff about BLPs. if you want to complain about the state of BLPs, start a thread or contribute to an existing one on that topic. (I'm not normally particularly rigid regarding staying on-topic, but I'm not going to be dragged off-topic by someone who didn't even bother to find out where I stand on an issue before attacking me over it.)

[SB_Johnny]

Ottava's claims regarding what FT2 said on IRC are questionable, considering the source.

I was thinking the same. Was anyone else around on the channel that day to confirm Dudley Do-Right's recounting?

[tarantino]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" -

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[powercorrupts]

How many unknown pedophiles will be using and editing Wikipedia every day? There are also people who do not actively abuse, yet have it in them. There are people who simply have extreme views - or as they would no-doubt say, extreme as others see them. As someone pointed out, there are the wrongly charged, and the wrongly accused. Everyone is out there somewhere and they all use Wikipedia - so actively chasing after any group (unsavoury or not) is just pointless. There seems always this need for Wikipedia to be used to punish people.

The perceived plan of Wikipedia (whether it is in reality a big lie or not) is supposed to be that through 'debate' the 'community' attempts to improve Wikipedia - until it is impossible to be abused for any longer than the shortest possible time. It shouldn't make any difference who holds an editor account - Wikimedia claims to want a well-written 'quality' encyclopedia that is more than just a repository of everything (though of course it so-often is little more than a list of cobbled 'facts'). It's basically a standards thing - and the standards are currently terrible, partly because the content rules and the various admin (esp when adjudicating at things like AfD's) are so bad. If editor identity was such a big deal, the obvious start in any 'cleaning up' precess would be to require all user's to show their real identities. (though that is not such a bad idea anyway in my opinion).

Blocking known pedophiles doesn't just set a dangerous precedent, it - so typically for these type of sweeping measures - ignores the underlying problem: that it is so much easier for a persistent 'agenda-aggressive' editor to contribute to Wikipedia, than it is for the editor who generally edits 'fairly' and according to the rules (or the 'spirit' of them, as they make so little sense), and who generally has 'honourable' intentions. (I think it can be argued that where there is an 'active interest' on Wikipedia, there is usually some degree of 'agenda' motivating it - it's basically a question of intent, degree, and how far you go).

Despite all the policy and guidelines (they will never call them "rules" will they), and all the gun-happy admin's huge powers, the table is simply laid out in the favour of the agenda-aggressive. Why? Because it's a circus designed for hawkers and rogues. It has a few good curios and exhibits, but the place will remain pitched on a swamp of decadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.

[GlassBeadGame]

How many unknown pedophiles will be using and editing Wikipedia every day? There are also people who do not actively abuse, yet have it in them. There are people who simply have extreme views - or as they would no-doubt say, extreme as others see them. As someone pointed out, there are the wrongly charged, and the wrongly accused. Everyone is out there somewhere and they all use Wikipedia - so actively chasing after any group (unsavoury or not) is just pointless. There seems always this need for Wikipedia to be used to punish people.

The perceived plan of Wikipedia (whether it is in reality a big lie or not) is supposed to be that through 'debate' the 'community' attempts to improve Wikipedia - until it is impossible to be abused for any longer than the shortest possible time. It shouldn't make any difference who holds an editor account - Wikimedia claims to want a well-written 'quality' encyclopedia that is more than just a repository of everything (though of course it so-often is little more than a list of cobbled 'facts'). It's basically a standards thing - and the standards are currently terrible, partly because the content rules and the various admin (esp when adjudicating at things like AfD's) are so bad. If editor identity was such a big deal, the obvious start in any 'cleaning up' precess would be to require all user's to show their real identities. (though that is not such a bad idea anyway in my opinion).

Blocking known pedophiles doesn't just set a dangerous precedent, it - so typically for these type of sweeping measures - ignores the underlying problem: that it is so much easier for a persistent 'agenda-aggressive' editor to contribute to Wikipedia, than it is for the editor who generally edits 'fairly' and according to the rules (or the 'spirit' of them, as they make so little sense), and who generally has 'honourable' intentions. (I think it can be argued that where there is an 'active interest' on Wikipedia, there is usually some degree of 'agenda' motivating it - it's basically a question of intent, degree, and how far you go).

Despite all the policy and guidelines (they will never call them "rules" will they), and all the gun-happy admin's huge powers, the table is simply laid out in the favour of the agenda-aggressive. Why? Because it's a circus designed for hawkers and rogues. It has a few good curios and exhibits, but the place will remain pitched on a swamp of deecadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.

Pedophiles don't just create biased content. They also fuck children. But WP has Ottava to protect them now. What could possibly go wrong?

[Sxeptomaniac]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" -

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

I would wonder how we would be so sure it's the same guy. If the editor has no history of editing articles related to kids or sexuality, and hasn't initiated contact with any younger editors, then I think it's reasonable to at least have an admin/arb contact the person privately about the evidence.

If someone really were a NAMBLA member, it means they probably will be an activist on some level, giving some evidence on-wiki of their screwed-up opinions.

[carbuncle]

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

I would wonder how we would be so sure it's the same guy. If the editor has no history of editing articles related to kids or sexuality, and hasn't initiated contact with any younger editors, then I think it's reasonable to at least have an admin/arb contact the person privately about the evidence.

If someone really were a NAMBLA member, it means they probably will be an activist on some level, giving some evidence on-wiki of their screwed-up opinions.

It has to be acknowledged that there is always a chance for misidentification, but I think we have to start from the assumption that there are solid reasons to believe that the editor is the NAMBLA member. Those reasons are likely to be related to the person's edits, but those identifying edits may not be related to kids or sexuality. They are more likely to be related to disclosing personal information that connects the online identities.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that we are certain that the hypothetical NAMBLA member is the WP editor. So the question becomes

Should Wikipedia allow known paedophiles to edit?

There is an argument to be made -- and some make the argument very strenuously -- that so long as an editor is not pushing a certain point of view, it does not matter if they are a racist or paedophile or Scientologist or Opus Dei member or what have you. It is not an unreasonable argument, but try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Sxeptomaniac]

try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

[GlassBeadGame]

try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

[powercorrupts]

How many unknown pedophiles will be using and editing Wikipedia every day? There are also people who do not actively abuse, yet have it in them. There are people who simply have extreme views - or as they would no-doubt say, extreme as others see them. As someone pointed out, there are the wrongly charged, and the wrongly accused. Everyone is out there somewhere and they all use Wikipedia - so actively chasing after any group (unsavoury or not) is just pointless. There seems always this need for Wikipedia to be used to punish people.

The perceived plan of Wikipedia (whether it is in reality a big lie or not) is supposed to be that through 'debate' the 'community' attempts to improve Wikipedia - until it is impossible to be abused for any longer than the shortest possible time. It shouldn't make any difference who holds an editor account - Wikimedia claims to want a well-written 'quality' encyclopedia that is more than just a repository of everything (though of course it so-often is little more than a list of cobbled 'facts'). It's basically a standards thing - and the standards are currently terrible, partly because the content rules and the various admin (esp when adjudicating at things like AfD's) are so bad. If editor identity was such a big deal, the obvious start in any 'cleaning up' precess would be to require all user's to show their real identities. (though that is not such a bad idea anyway in my opinion).

Blocking known pedophiles doesn't just set a dangerous precedent, it - so typically for these type of sweeping measures - ignores the underlying problem: that it is so much easier for a persistent 'agenda-aggressive' editor to contribute to Wikipedia, than it is for the editor who generally edits 'fairly' and according to the rules (or the 'spirit' of them, as they make so little sense), and who generally has 'honourable' intentions. (I think it can be argued that where there is an 'active interest' on Wikipedia, there is usually some degree of 'agenda' motivating it - it's basically a question of intent, degree, and how far you go).

Despite all the policy and guidelines (they will never call them "rules" will they), and all the gun-happy admin's huge powers, the table is simply laid out in the favour of the agenda-aggressive. Why? Because it's a circus designed for hawkers and rogues. It has a few good curios and exhibits, but the place will remain pitched on a swamp of deecadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.

Pedophiles don't just create biased content. They also fuck children. But WP has Ottava to protect them now. What could possibly go wrong?

The full stop approach. Very Daily Mail. Maybe someone will think I'm a pedophile lover? Mmmm kinkeh.

There are so many comparisons with Wikpedia and sex in general you need cross your eyes glasses to think straight. I can't believe there is anyone left in there mud wrestling with those mind rapers who has retained any kind of sanity - supposing they had any of value to begin with.

[GlassBeadGame]

The full stop approach. Very Daily Mail. Maybe someone will think I'm a pedophile lover? Mmmm kinkeh.

More like Mother Jones I would hope, but point taken. In the past when the libertarian dust had clogged all of WP and made it incapable of any response I may have resorted to the rhetoric of "the do-nothing enablers are as guilty as the pedophiles." We have gained enough adherents to step away from that now. A significant group of Wikipedians recognize it has a problem and are allies of sorts. They come in two flavors. First the "pedophiles write biased content" type. They would address the problem with "community" tools like RfCs. Now more rarely we get at least some who admit the outright threat the site presents for children. They are the ones most receptive to board action and outside intervention. Well, maybe a third type who want to use "pedophile" as a revenge tool to settle old scores.

[Milton Roe]

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

You mean these sites deal with pedophiles as WP deals with the likes of Gregory Kohs and Andrew Morrow?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Bizarre. And more proof that in institutions that exist mainly to survive and amass power, there is only one sin, and that is disloyalty/defiance. Consider the Catholic Church and paedophiles, as example. It's much like Wikipedia. You can do any personal damage you like to individuals, and it's never as bad as attacking the "government" or powerz-that-be, directly. They'll protect you from your personal problems, if you're an insider. But become an outsider, and you're subject to the ultimate punishments that they have, even if all you did, was insult them. Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) Human institutions are all alike when power is their only goal.

[carbuncle]

try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

You are right - I haven't offered any evidence to back up my claims. So, using Alexa's listing of top websites, here is an example taken from Yahoo's terms of service:

MEMBER CONDUCT
...You agree to not use the Yahoo! Services to:
... b. harm minors in any way;

And from YouTube's "community guidelines":

Don't Cross the Line

Here are some common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble:

* YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation. Please read our Safety Tips and stay safe on YouTube.

And from Blogger's "content policy":

Child safety: We have a zero tolerance policy towards content that exploits children. Some examples of this include:

* Child pornography: We will terminate the accounts of any user we find publishing or distributing child pornography. We will also report that user to law enforcement.
* Pedophilia: We do not allow content that encourages or promotes sexual attraction towards children. For example, do not create blogs with galleries of images of children where the collection of images or text accompanying the images is sexually suggestive.

Need I go on?

[Sxeptomaniac]

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

I agree that there are serious safety issues involved and that certain groups of WP editors have often been resistant to taking sensible measures to prevent unnecessary risk. However, I also note that WP does not tend to encourage socialization to the degree that many sites do. I'm not discounting the danger, but recognizing that there are a number of conflicting factors regarding WP's risk.

try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

You are right - I haven't offered any evidence to back up my claims. So, using Alexa's listing of top websites, here is an example taken from Yahoo's terms of service:
...

And from Blogger's "content policy":
...

Need I go on?

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

[tarantino]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

I agree there are good reasons why WP should have set up a standard terms of service agreement years ago (the resistance to doing so is another strange aspect of the site). Still, that doesn't really change my point, which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information

[Ottava]

Here are the questions , think he has the guts to answer them?

Any predictions?

Any suggestions for other questions?



Sxeptomaniac

which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information

Yahoo shut down all of their private rooms based on real life FBI stings that went to people's homes. So yeah, there was quite a lot of off-site evidence there. Yahoo also takes in off-site evidence about users to shut down pedophiles, and MySpace has also disabled profiles based on off-site evidence. I don't know about the rest.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Minor4th]

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

Exactly! How is this not extremely obvious?

Instead, we have the exact opposite on Wiki. Free speechers running amok, no ToS, no prohibition against illegal activity (other than copyright violations), child protection policy du jour - largely a reaction in proportion to the amount of negative media attention given to Wiki/Jimbo. Not only are there no controls or adequate safeguards, there are blocs of editors advocating for pedophile "rights" to "be" and to edit, even as self-identified pedophiles, so long as they are not disruptive. What in the world could be more disruptive than having a self-identified pedophile (whether identified on or off wiki) participating in a collaborrative project with children? And no restriction on said pedophile's access and ability to contact children privately through wikimail? It's completely nuts.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

Bearing in mind that there really is no such thing as "The Church", just the people inside it (and the ruling clique at that), the full quotation should be "... were merely moved to someplace else and defended at great cost for as long as possible".

Who is The Church of the Wikipedia? The trustee and a handful of immovable admins, or are even the trustees mostly a front? The Church being Jimbo, Godwin, Michael Davis ... can we put names on them?

To play the Devil's Advocate for one moment, is someone a pedophile while they are not abusing or working towards abusing children? Should the Wikipedia disallow pedophiles who work consistently on neutral topics, upload no sexual content, and attempt no interaction with minors? The simple answer is they cannot because they cannot identify them. There are few real life people on the Wikipedia, no register of volunteers acting for them. There is no way of telling who is what.

In fact, editing Wikipedia would be an excellent activity for individuals on the sex offenders register who cannot otherwise go outside and interact with young people and the rest of society in a safe manner! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I lead in with that not to act as a pedophile apologist ... I am not. I would happy with a death penalty for them and see no redeeming quality in society having to afford their existence ... but to suggest that the prominent pro-pedophile activists are not actually pedophiles per se but misintended amateur liberal theoreticians, like Eric Moeller was. Let's expand "pedophile" to "child abuser", not all child abuse is sexual.

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

Therefore, "Should Wikipedia allow known paedophiles to edit?" How can they know them? The only way forward is proper volunteer registration process - single verified account - as per every other responsible charity NPO. One that can easily be checked against by sex offender registries.

Would Childline, the Boy Scouts, or the Samaritans allow anonymous volunteers to play with and educate their children? Don't make me laugh ...

Of course, then the questions arise,

"Should Wikipedia allow known rapists to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia allow known wife beaters to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia employ individuals representing their qualifications fraudulently?"
"Should Wikipedia endorse individuals who hide $800,000 from someone they owed it to.

Nothings going to happen, is it? Let's just all have fun and invite the kids to play! The Wikipedia has never had a moral core, not at least since Sanger left I suspect. The Wikipedia's moral core is Jimbo's core ... is the core of the core individuals.

Again, who are they?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[carbuncle]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

I agree there are good reasons why WP should have set up a standard terms of service agreement years ago (the resistance to doing so is another strange aspect of the site). Still, that doesn't really change my point, which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information

Sxeptomaniac, you're right - the terms of service excerpts that I posted only deal with on-site activities, but I am implying that top ten websites will take action against paedophilia advocates based on off-site identification. While Facebook, to choose one example, quite clearly states in their TOS "You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender", I doubt any site is going to explicitly say that they will ban people for something they do on another site. That would seem to be inviting lawsuits. I can only tell you that Google-owned sites for one take such things very seriously and will act swiftly, given convincing evidence.

The WP situation is doubly or perhaps triply interesting. Since they are a non-profit charity, they do not have to abide by Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which applies to the other US-based sites. Nothing is stopping them from adopting it (or similar), but they don't.

WP has no real "terms of service" similar to virtually every other major website. There is a weak argument to be made that the various policies and guidelines make up a TOS, but a TOS that anyone can edit is less than ideal.

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

[KD Tries Again]

To play the Devil's Advocate for one moment, is someone a pedophile while they are not abusing or working towards abusing children? Should the Wikipedia disallow pedophiles who work consistently on neutral topics, upload no sexual content, and attempt no interaction with minors? The simple answer is they cannot because they cannot identify them. There are few real life people on the Wikipedia, no register of volunteers acting for them. There is no way of telling who is what.

I think that's right, and this topic would be much more straightforward if it focused on edits rather than editors. Editing WP to encourage or promote pedophilia is a problem, whoever is doing it. If an editor is making appropriate edits on WP but engaging in harmful activities outside WP, the situation needn't be dealt with by WP - the individual should be reported to the appropriate authorities.

Of course, Ottava does deliver some mysterious gems:

Brothers and coffee shops are highly restricted now and will be even more so. This is fact.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again:

[Ottava]

Of course, Ottava does deliver some mysterious gems:

Brothers and coffee shops are highly restricted now and will be even more so. This is fact.

Should say Brothels but my keyboard isn't working with some letters and the spellchecker changed it to what it thought was "commonsense" (I guess it didn't think anyone would mention a brothel?). Weird stuff.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2cc0e802-d2fb-11df...tml&_i_referer=

That is the article but now it put up a pay wall. Rather lame.


By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily. FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices. Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc. Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition. Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[carbuncle]

I lead in with that not to act as a pedophile apologist ... I am not. I would happy with a death penalty for them and see no redeeming quality in society having to afford their existence ... but to suggest that the prominent pro-pedophile activists are not actually pedophiles per se but misintended amateur liberal theoreticians, like Eric Moeller was. Let's expand "pedophile" to "child abuser", not all child abuse is sexual.

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

Despite the fact that I've been involved in several discussions here relating to paedophiles, I'm not actually one of those people who thinks that paedophiles on the internet are anywhere near the threat that some people make it out to be. Children are at much greater risk of being sexually abused by their parents, relatives, priests, scoutmasters, sports coaches, etc. And very much more likely to be either physically or mentally abused by their peers.

I take issue with the statement "It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia". The implication that gay men are attempting to sexualize young males for their own nefarious and lascivious purposes seems a bit silly to me. I suspect most gay men would like to see young gay men (or women) in a world where they are able to be comfortable with their own sexuality, rather than facing discrimination, ridicule, or abuse.

[Abd]

Consider the Catholic Church and paedophiles, as example. It's much like Wikipedia. You can do any personal damage you like to individuals, and it's never as bad as attacking the "government" or powerz-that-be, directly. They'll protect you from your personal problems, if you're an insider. But become an outsider, and you're subject to the ultimate punishments that they have, even if all you did, was insult them. Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) Human institutions are all alike when power is their only goal.

Milton's comment is a generic truth, showing that both the Church and Wikipedia are human institutions. The analysis is cogent. Intelligent Catholics understand this, and church doctrine, if I'm correct, also addresses it. I.e., the Church is not considered infallible in all matters. It's a human institution, albeit one with a role that is considered to transcend that; it is only in that role that believing Catholics consider it infallible.

(And many do question this as well.)

There is a somewhat analogous infallibility doctrine in Islam: the "consensus" is considered infallible. I actually agree with this as a practical matter, but not as an absolute one. I.e., the consensus, if it is real, if it is a consensus of the knowledgeable -- lots of fudge factor room there! -- should be "treated" as if true or proper.

But errors can be made, particularly because fact or argument may be overlooked, and, because it must be necessary to be able to correct them, a view that is "contrary to consensus" is not heretical as such, though, to not be disruptive ("disruption" is a problem in itself, i.e., as in the Qur'anic injunction to "not insult their gods," i.e., don't gratuitously insult what people believe, even if you know it's hooey), a challenge to established consensus should be stated with caution.... It is only heresy tenaciously asserted after being considered by the knowledgeable, in depth, and rejected. And what "consensus" means has always been the problem.... the sects become sects because they define their own experts and exclude all the others....

The real point of Milton's post was not about the Catholic church, but about Wikipedia. What happened at Wikipedia should not have been a surprise. I'd been studying organizational structure for years, and I wasn't surprised! I did think that there might be an opportunity to move beyond this stage, but I certainly didn't think that this would be easy or certain of success.

[Abd]

By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily.

Depends on whom you offend. From my point of view, of course, the entire Catholic church (and more than the Catholic church) is rooted in a peculiar heresy, a "mystery" that inherently departs from the tradition in which it supposedly arose, but .... never mind!

People do get stuck on old mistakes. Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology. Perhaps in spite of it.

FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices.

Is it heresy to lie about history? To repeat unquestioningly, propaganda that is almost a thousand years old?

Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc.

Therefore, for their own good, we burn them at the stake, torture them until they confess, etc. Better that they suffer now than in the next life, eh? We were just being kind to them, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition.

From Ottava, I'd expect to see a smiley face if he wasn't serious.... Isn't this what he's been about? Prosecuting sexual heretics?

Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.

Wow! Toss in some xenophobia for good measure. Obviously, red-blooded Americans wouldn't do this kind of stuff. Just those dissolute foreigners.

I don't mind, at all, people defending the Catholic Church, a beloved institution for many, but I do mind when they become offensive in the process.

There is no "right to edit," but there is a presumed warranty of fairness involved, that's my legal theory. Wikipedia solicits labor, and the quid pro quo is that presumed warranty. It's thin, but it's all we've got.

However, be that as it may, Wikipedia has no obligation at all to ban "pedophiles," "neo-nazis," "crazies," "criminals," "Catholics," "Jews," "Muslims," or "ornithologists."

It does have some responsibility to avoid abuse of the site by anyone, certainly for illegal purpose. Fortunately, that can be based on actual on-site behavior. For Wikipedia to develop an off-wiki investigation process to identify member of any of these reprehensible categories would be ... expensive, time-consuming, and would, if volunteer-based, attract the most deranged of editors, those who take pleasure in accusing others of offenses. Some of these even imagine themselves to be ... "Christians."

And it would expose Wikipedia to real liability in many ways.

Going beyond addressing actual evidence of on-wiki abuse (or off-wiki abuse rooted in on-wiki connections, as an extreme) is a Bad Idea. That someone is, allegedly or actually, a pedophile (which refers to preference, not to action), a homosexual (ditto), or heterosexual (double ditto) is no evidence of any misbehavior or behavioral intent whatsoever. I'm a parent, I'm a male heterosexual, and, hey, what about my daughters? What about all those female editors, some of them underage?

Believe it or not, the police were called to investigate when, in a meeting of a 12-step program, I acknowledged how wonderful it felt when my two adopted daughters, one Chinese, one Ethiopian, fell asleep, one with her head on one shoulder of mine, the other's head on the other shoulder. The police are obligated to investigate, and I thanked the officer. Who could not, of course, tell me who had violated the confidence, but I did know, it was obvious. At the next meeting, I talked about what had happened, and the woman came up to me later -- I had not mentioned her name -- and apologized.

Honi soit qui mal y pense. She was crazy, I understood that.

The difference is that Ottava would never apologize.

[Abd]

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

I, too, protest this grossly offensive stereotyping of homosexuals, the Gay Rights movement, and the linking of "gay" with pedophilia, a particular libel that should have been dead a long time ago.

By the way, I've known "pedophiles," though only those who were attempting to move beyond it. Complicated. One of these people, facing prosecution, privately admitted to me what a mistake it had all been, he'd rationalized it all to himself as "love" and a good thing, but then he realized that he was creating a secret, between his underage "friend" and the friend's parents, as well as between the "friend" and society as a whole, and this was very much not good.

It's possible to argue for the removal of age restrictions on sex, based on the practices of his or that culture, here and there, but we are talking about children who live and will grow up in a culture which very much does not accept sexual relations between children and adults, with some fuzziness only about the edges. Part of the sexual liberation movement has been the realization of people that they need to stop hiding what they feel and what they do; but this collides with strong social morays especially, still, when children are involved.

I was involved in counseling, once, a gay Muslim. Now, he had a problem! His plan was to act out his "preferences" now, but then, a little later, he'd go back to Malaysia and marry a nice Malaysian girl, and have kids. I asked him if he'd tell his future wife and her family about his history. Of course not! So he was planning to set up conditions where he'd be concealing his past. From his wife. To my mind, this was a form of self-torture.

There was, in his imagination, no way in which he could win, he was going to burn one way or the other.... it was absolutely no wonder that he was acting out.

I pointed out that the central problem he faced was a deeply spiritual one, his lack of trust in reality (God, Allah, whatever you call it). I made sure that he connected with sexual addiction recovery programs, because his behavior was neither acceptable by his religion, nor by what he wanted in his heart, a satisfying relationship with a man. He was seeking out strangers in parks, etc., very dangerous behavior, and he knew it. That's addiction, pure and simple.

It was fueled by his belief that he couldn't have anything better. I pointed out that heterosexuals who were not married faced exactly the same immediate situation, religiously. "But they have hope," he replied.

He had boxed himself in with a set of beliefs that limited the possibilities. What he needed was acceptance, of himself and his situation, and trust in something greater than himself....

standard twelve-step answer, in fact.

Now, about this Wikipedia addiction.....

[KD Tries Again]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

[Milton Roe]

By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily. FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices. Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc. Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition.

Oh, please. Heresy is preaching sin, not DOING sin. The first is what the Church hates. The second is the source of all the church's power-- the people who secretly sin and hate themselves and look to the church to forgive them. If it weren't for that, the Church's influence would largely cease to exist.

Put another way: it's not guilt-ridden sinners that threaten the church; rather such people are its bread and butter. At some level, the church needs them badly. What threatens the church, is people redefinning "sin" to be something else. Particularly something the church then can no longer use to get money, influence, and power by forgiving (since there's now nothing to forgive, so far as the heretics go). Look how much mileage the church has gotten from masturbation! Almost as much as Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh, they'll excommunicate you as a priest if you preach anything so tame as the right of preists to marry in the normal way, and then defy the Holy See when they tell you stop that. But secret pedophiles who felt bad about it, were coddled endlessly, because (at least so long as the problem was kept from the public) they weren't a threat to the church at all. The church didn't give two figs for what happened to young boys personally.

Of course, when pedophiles because a major public embarassment for the church, all that has changed somewhat. But again, this is due to the threat to the power of the church as an institution from the Bad Press. It's not because more damage is being done to the victims. And it's got nothing whatever to do with heresy.

[Abd]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

That's easy. None of them. If you have so little time, what are you doing reading Wikipedia Review?

Honestly, folks, I have a limited amount of time. If someone read one of those posts and thought it worth reading, let us know, help KD out. I don't have time to review them. Most of what I write is not for everyone, so, my recommendation: read the first few words and if not inspired to read more, skip it. It probably is not for you. No blame.

[lilburne]

(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/palace_inquisition_vittoriosa.jpg)

Cells in the Palace of the Inquisition - Vittoriosa Malta.

From what I recall the Inquisition was mostly involved in ferreting out backsliding converts from Judaism.


(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/joan_arc_rouen.jpg)

And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

[GlassBeadGame]

(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/palace_inquisition_vittoriosa.jpg)

Cells in the Palace of the Inquisition - Vittoriosa Malta.

From what I recall the Inquisition was mostly involved in ferreting out backsliding converts from Judaism.


(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/joan_arc_rouen.jpg)

And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

My understating is the I-Team got busy after the fall of Islamic Granada. The Muslims were tolerant of Jews but once conquered by the Very Catholic Kingdom forced conversion was on hand for both Muslims and Jews and backsliders hunted down. Of course this was just before the time the Conquistadors trailed priests in their wake and soon the same I-Team was rooting out idols and heretics in the remains of Mesoamerican civilizations.

[SB_Johnny]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

That's easy. None of them.

Good call! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

Honestly, folks, I have a limited amount of time.

If that's a fact, it's not readily apparent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Ottava]

Why do people think the Spanish Inquisition was the only Inquisition or even the first?

o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inqu...retic_movements

"The spread of heretic movements from the 12th century, can be seen at least in part as a reaction to the increasing moral corruption of the clergy, which included illegal marriages and the possession of extreme wealth. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition's main focus was to eradicate these new sects. Thus its range of action was predominantly set in Italy and France, where such sects had settled. The two main heretic movements of the period were the Cathars and the Waldensians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars

"For the credentes however, sexual activity was not prohibited, but procreation was strongly discouraged, resulting in the charge by their opponents of sexual perversion. The common English insult "bugger" is derived from "Bulgar", the notion that Cathars followed the "Bulgarian heresy" whose teaching included sexual activities which skirted procreation."

"As a consequence of their rejection of oaths, Cathars also rejected marriage vows. Such was the situation, that when called before the Inquisition, one accused of Catharism needed only to show that he was married for the case to be immediately dismissed."



Milton -

"Heresy is preaching sin, not DOING sin. "

Yes, one corrupts others and the other is just a single corruption. So, one is more forgivable. But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).


By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

Why do people think the Spanish Inquisition was the only Inquisition or even the first?

That's easy. Because they are stupid and ignorant. But why are they stupid and ignorant? Because that way Ottava will be led down the rosy path, believing in his own superior knowledge. It's a test.

Yes, one corrupts others and the other is just a single corruption. So, one is more forgivable.

And thus the religion supposedly based on the teachings of forgiveness becomes a matter of judging what sins are forgivable and what ones are not. Good luck, Ottava, facing the Judge. As you considered others, so shall you be considered.

But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).

This truly endears Thomas Aquinas and Ottava to me. To any others? Bring back the Inquisition? No wonder Ottava is always running into trouble! He's 600 years behind the times. Ottava, society moved on, the Church moved on. But you have not. Ah, for the good old days, when we could just torture and burn someone who's opinions we don't like.

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

With every word he writes, it gets worse.

I am *soooo* comforted by this. A rehabilitation trial might happen that exonerates the "heretic" which Ottava has just said should be burned, and, why, 500 years later, she might even be declared a saint! How comforting!

Look, it's great that the Church is going back and at least acknowledging mistakes, that's part of healing. But what's the core here?

Ottava is praising and calling for the execution of heretics. Effectively, of pedophiles. How about homosexuals, after all, aren't they all wannabe pedophiles?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[SB_Johnny]

But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).

Last I heard, the Vatican opposes executions.

This truly endears Thomas Aquinas and Ottava to me. To any others? Bring back the Inquisition? No wonder Ottava is always running into trouble! He's 600 years behind the times. Ottava, society moved on, the Church moved on. But you have not. Ah, for the good old days, when we could just torture and burn someone who's opinions we don't like.

I think he wants to be one of the inquisitors. He's just sharpening his skills in wikiland waiting for the opportunity to do the real thing. Hopefully he won't just go ahead and get started on behalf of the church (since he knows that's what they really need) in the way he does it on behalf of teh community (since he knows that's what they really need).

Of course, something akin to the inquisition is alive and well in taliban-controlled regions, so maybe he can just convert!

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

Yup, I'm sure the first thing the inquisition will do will be to excommunicate arbcom and canonize Ottava. Priorities, priorities.

Ottava is praising and calling for the execution of heretics. Effectively, of pedophiles. How about homosexuals, after all, aren't they all wannabe pedophiles?

I believe he has already referred to them as "gays". Only a troll and a liar would not use the right word to describe those creatures.

[lilburne]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[A Horse With No Name]

(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/joan_arc_rouen.jpg)

And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

The original hot pants! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

Better late than never? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.



SB Johnny

Last I heard, the Vatican opposes executions.

According to the current catechism, it is the act of last resort and to be used "rarely if ever". The quote from John Paul II with the change was dealing with countries that execute political prisoners or for petty crimes.

But this is recent. Here is the 1992 catechism which still is 100% Aquinas:

"2266. Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally, punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Personally I thought it might be more illuminating, on topic, and fun baiting homosexuals over homosexual pedophilia (a community less than 3% of the population committing over 25% of child sexual abuse); rather than baiting Ottava yet again over the Catholic Church.

Looking into it, I was surprise to discover the average profile of an online pedophile. It is equates directly to Wikipedia demographics, e.g. white, male, 25 to 45, higher than average education/intelligence, some in position of authority, but what surprised me even more was that most commit their first offense aged around 15 years old. The same age as many of the Wikipedia admins we discuss.

I guess if you must swing this way, this is kind of 'on topic', Milla Jovovich on Joan of Arc and aged 12 years old. They had Jovovich re-doing the Brooke Shield soft porn Blue Lagoon pedo stuff aged 14. What exactly is watching an hour and a half of a 14 year old half naked losing her virginity to a 22 year old Brian Krause?

Lilli awakens in the morning with her first menstrual period, just as Sarah described the threshold of womanhood. Richard awakens in the morning with an erection, and suffers a nasty mood swing, which he cannot explain.

True to form, the Porno-pedia thoughtfully educates us to the fact that whereas,

"The DVD version of this film is reframed to cut out Milla Jovovich's breasts in the scene where she's looking at herself in the mirror ... The older VHS version showed [Milla's] nipples at the very bottom of the screen."

An encyclopedia any pedos can edit. Think about it. I post detailed information on a website about how and where I can see your 14 year old daughter's nipples, what am I?

Of course, it is grossly unfair to say "a community of less than 3% of the population (male homosexuals) commits over 25% of child sexual abuse" because not certainly all homosexual men are pedophiles. The real figure would be a tiny % commit 25% of the 'male on male' child sex crimes but that is the problems with "communities". Every "community" wants its rights but few are willing to own up to, accept and resolve its negative responsibilities.

As to the Papistry ... God save us, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Sxeptomaniac]

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.


I am abundantly aware of the need to protect kids from strangers. However, high-profile abductions by strangers or internet predators may get the news, but (as Carbuncle mentioned previously) the vast majority of sexually abused children were victimized by someone they knew and trusted, often family.

WP has been ridiculously reluctant to take appropriate measures, but I would not want to see things swing the opposite direction, which would cause another set of problems. Right now, over-reactions that probably don't actually help protect kids are pretty common.

[A Horse With No Name]

"The DVD version of this film is reframed to cut out Milla Jovovich's breasts in the scene where she's looking at herself in the mirror ... The older VHS version showed [Milla's] nipples at the very bottom of the screen."

I am damn glad that I never got rid of my VHS player. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[GlassBeadGame]

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.


I am abundantly aware of the need to protect kids from strangers. However, high-profile abductions by strangers or internet predators may get the news, but (as Carbuncle mentioned previously) the vast majority of sexually abused children were victimized by someone they knew and trusted, often family.

WP has been ridiculously reluctant to take appropriate measures, but I would not want to see things swing the opposite direction, which would cause another set of problems. Right now, over-reactions that probably don't actually help protect kids are pretty common.

At the end of the day I can only think of a few courses of action that would amount to an appropriate level of response, including:

• Prohibit child editing and require credit card level age verification;
• Require credit card level age verification and allow children to edit with parental approval and allow their interaction only with adults that have provided police clearance and monitor the interaction by staff, or;
• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

These option are either expensive of require changing the way things are done in a manner that the faithful would describe as "constructing barriers to participation."

[lilburne]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

And why did Charles VI require a heroine in 1455? You'd really have thought that he might have gotten something sorted out before 24 years were up. Hmmm? Think it might have had something to do with the other trial concerning a plot by his bodyguard to kill him?

(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/LouisofLuxembougtomb.jpg)

If I hadn't of screwed it up this would have been have a photo of the Duke of Bedford's tomb in the crypt of Rouen Cathedral. As it is you'll have to settle for Louis of Luxembourg's tomb. He was the brother of John of Luxembourg who sold her to the Duke of Burgundy. Louis conducted the sale of Joan between the Duke of Burgundy and the English and was present at her trial and execution. He was made Bishop of Rouen in 1336 and made a Cardinal by Pope Eugene IV in 1440.

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[SB_Johnny]

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.

"Pro-pedophile activists" (in scare quotes because frankly it's just freakish that there would be such activists, but here we are) should be excluded, and the WMF should have paid professionals to do the investigating. The problem is that they rely on "the community" to do this, which pretty much opens the door for people like Ottava to take on the task (because sane and rational people don't do that unless their paid to such an unpleasant job).

Personally I thought it might be more illuminating, on topic, and fun baiting homosexuals over homosexual pedophilia (a community less than 3% of the population committing over 25% of child sexual abuse); rather than baiting Ottava yet again over the Catholic Church.

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

At the end of the day I can only think of a few courses of action that would amount to an appropriate level of response, including:

• Prohibit child editing and require credit card level age verification;
• Require credit card level age verification and allow children to edit with parental approval and allow their interaction only with adults that have provided police clearance and monitor the interaction by staff, or;
• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

These option are either expensive of require changing the way things are done in a manner that the faithful would describe as "constructing barriers to participation."

Sorta with ya, but I don't think #3 works. WP is not a good place for kids, period.

[EricBarbour]

• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

Some people are already trying to enforce anonymity. Been going on for a while.

WP is not a good place for kids, period.

Oh? What about Anonymous Dissident? Became an admin at age 12. Even managed to score bureaucrat power.
(Despite posting a resignation note in March, he's still doing admin work.)

If pictures of naked boys really bother you, perhaps you would be smart to avoid this and this
on Commons. They're old photos, thus out of copyright, thus acceptable to the Wiki-Church.

Feel free to share those links with your neighborhood busybodies.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[SB_Johnny]

WP is not a good place for kids, period.

Oh? What about Anonymous Dissident? Became an admin at age 12. Even managed to score bureaucrat power.
(Despite posting a resignation note in March, he's still doing admin work.)

And that's a good thing?

[wikieyeay]

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

well sure, but I think the point was re the Catholic baiting, no?

[Milton Roe]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

[Milton Roe]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

[Ottava]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

This was also not his first place to stay in following the incident - Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini had him over at his palace (many of these Italian Bishops and Cardinals were of very rich families). Note, this Archbishop also helped Galileo finish his later works.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

That should narrow down the pages. Your view of history seems to be from a really bad source. The matter was all a political dispute following insults and libel against a few Jesuit rivals. It had nothing to do with faith but about one guy wanting to attack some enemies.

An interesting work on the changing views of Galileo can be found in Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. However, it seems like you got a hold of a source that is more anti-Catholic than historically accurate, and probably also states that Catholics thought the world was flat and was warning Columbus of sailing off the edge (which was a myth promoted by 19th century Protestants in the US).

[Milton Roe]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

This was also not his first place to stay in following the incident - Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini had him over at his palace (many of these Italian Bishops and Cardinals were of very rich families). Note, this Archbishop also helped Galileo finish his later works.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

That should narrow down the pages. Your view of history seems to be from a really bad source. The matter was all a political dispute following insults and libel against a few Jesuit rivals. It had nothing to do with faith but about one guy wanting to attack some enemies.

An interesting work on the changing views of Galileo can be found in Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. However, it seems like you got a hold of a source that is more anti-Catholic than historically accurate, and probably also states that Catholics thought the world was flat and was warning Columbus of sailing off the edge (which was a myth promoted by 19th century Protestants in the US).

I said he was threatened with torture, and shown the instruments formally.

I'm under no illusions about flat Earth vs. round Earth. Though this myth that Columbus thought the Earth was flat goes back much farther than the 19th century (at least to Jefferson's notes on Virginia, which is where I encountered it first). I think it is due partly to Copernicus' book of 1543, wherein he pokes fun at an one early Christian theologian for thinking the Earth is flat, knowing (but forgetting to say) that everybody else at the time thought it was spherical. Later readers took Copernicus' argument entirely too literally.

No, the official Catholic position (enforced only after the first Galileo fiasco of 1616) was the the Earth was stationary, and didn't orbit the Sun (rather the other way around). In other words, Copernicus' view. The idea that Galileo was being punished for mocking Jesuits might be true, but the Pope certainly did nothing to stop it at Galileo's second trial. And the matter went far futher than simple action against Gallileo, because the church not only put Galileo's book on the index of banned and prohibited works Index Librorum Prohibitorum, but also (retrospectively) Copernicus's great work, published 1543 (at almost the day he died), but which wasn't withdrawn from circulation by the Roman Catholic church and put on the Index until 1616-- the year the Holy See officially first denounced Galileo regarding heliocentrism. This is more than 60 years later. Copernicus hadn't had problems with the church and certainly not with any Jesuits, but his book stayed on the list pending corrections never made, until 1758. You can read Galileo affair which is pretty good. You can argue all you like about it being a personal thing against Galileo, and you might even be right, but it also went on to Galileo's ideas to those of Copernicus too (though he was long dead). It was a war against a POV, and it included many banned users. Where have we seen that before?

This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's In Job.... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Zúñiga [In Job] be suspended until corrected.

As noted, that correction was never carried out. Protestants happily kept publishing the thing, and Catholics (by and large) couldn't read it. Which was the whole idea, of course.

[CharlotteWebb]

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

well sure, but I think the point was re the Catholic baiting, no?

Təˈmeɪtoʊ, təˈmɑːtəʊ. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[lonza leggiera]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits ...

Poppycock. Galileo was prosecuted in 1633 for writing Dialogo Sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo, in which he defended heliocentrism as a physical possibility (as opposed to a mere convenient mathematical fiction). Catholics had been effectively forbidden to do this in 1616 by a decree issued by the Congregation of the Index, in which heliocentrism was condemned as "false and contrary to Scripture". Even before this decree was issued, Galileo had been informed of its imminent promulgation, and that, as a consequence, Catholics were not permitted to "hold or defend" the condemned doctrine, and he had then promised not to do so himself.

I don't recall reading anything in Galileo's Dialogue that could reasonably be construed as "libelling" or even "mocking and degrading" any Jesuits, and neither have I ever seen such a suggestion made by any reputable authority on Galileo. The works of Galileo's which antagonized the Jesuits were Discourse on the Comets, published in 1619 under the name of Mario Guiducci, one of Galileo's followers—but largely written by Galileo himself—, and The Assayer, published in 1623. The first of these was not particularly disrespectful, though it did contain some slighting criticisms of the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, which certainly offended them. The Assayer, however, contained quite a savage attack on the Jesuits' reply to Discourse on the Comets and its "anonymous" author, Father Orazio Grassi (writing under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsi). As a result, Galileo's relations with the Jesuits were irreversibly damaged. But nothing in either of those books was ever cited—at least not officially by the Church herself—as doctrinally objectionable, or as providing cause for any action against Galileo. In fact, Pope Urban VIII reportedly found The Assayer quite entertaining and never expressed any misgivings at all about its contents.

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

But the Villa Gioiello illustrated in your second link has nothing whatever to do with Galileo's villa, Il Gioiello, where he was kept under house arrest. The developers of your Villa Gioiello tell us on its home page that it's situated on the border between Tuscany and Umbria, overlooking Lake Trasimeno, which is some 120km southeast of Florence. Galileo's Il Gioiello, on the other hand, is in Arcetri in the hills surrounding Florence, and not more than 10km from the city centre. You can get a bird's-eye view of it by zooming in on the satellite or hybrid version of the Google map available on the Galileo Museum's web site. Here is a screen capture of a zoomed-in copy of the satellite map from that site. Galileo's house is supposedly the one with the virtual red pin in its roof.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

No, he was neither. I'm not aware of anyone besides you who has suggested that Simplicio was intended to be a caricature of Orazio Grassi, or of any other Jesuit. Rumours that Galileo had intended Simplicio to be a caricature of the Pope surfaced in December 1635, more than two years after the end of his trial (see Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo, p.62). I don't know of any modern authority on Galileo who credits him with having actually harboured any such intention, and of the few I am acquainted with, most have explicitly stated that they consider it unlikely. Even Arthur Koestler, who is no great fan of Galileo's, says in The Sleepwalkers that the suspicions Urban supposedly entertained that Simplicio might have been a caricature of him were "of course untrue". In Galileo at Work (p.355 ) Stillman Drake expresses the view that Simplicio was modelled on two of the dimmer of Galileo's Philosophical opponents, Ludovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, neither of whom were members of the clergy, let alone Jesuits.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.


This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Its Wikipedia Review guys, not Wikipedia Substitute. Please take your 'off topic' witter wars back to the WP talk pages.

What is this to do with FT2 and pedophilia?

The point I was leading on to make is that a lot of what we are talking about here, in general, is really not "pedophilia" but homosexuality.

I spent some time looking into the bigger debate and it seems clear that what the experts and authorities consider to be pedophiles and pedophilia of concern is target infants. Infants who would be too young to use a PC. One source said the average victim was 4 years old ... rather than older queers targeting underage teenage boys or encouraging the acceptability of homosexual experimentation in teenage - that they or their kin might benefit from - in general.

Yes, I can see the much bigger picture of the Wikipedia being used as an opinion forming device or meeting place where they might recognise themselves but I cannot see it as a useful medium for them.

The question I was leading to is where do we/the Wikipedia draw the line between pedophilia and homosexuality? 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... Personally, I do not think it is a nice clear cut line. In one survey, homosexual males were clearly shown to have a preference towards younger males (15 +) whilst heterosexual males exhibited a preference for mid-20 women.

From experience, I would say that because of the precociousness of young males, and the covertness of gay society, older homosexuals preying on younger boys is viewed differently or more leniently (or not seen so much at all) as older heterosexual males preying on mid to early teen females.

[GlassBeadGame]

What is this to do with FT2 and pedophilia?

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2. I figured he could at least tie. I mean horse fucking for Christ's sake.