Guys with big schlongs can't be good editors, but pedos can, According to Wikipedia Options

[NotARepublican55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../Charliebigdick

No edits, but blocked as a vandal (with IP blocked from even creating a new screenname) just for having "dick" in his screenname. And if you think blocks like this this are just occasional false positives, then you are completely wrong.

But (according to admins like Everyking and Herostratus), we should encourage pedophiles to edit since they can be productive editors (just as long as they don't use words like "poop", "sexy", "retarded", "gay", etc in their screennames).

And Wikidiots wonder why people mock them.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sat 27th February 2010, 12:00am

[Malleus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../Charliebigdick

No edits, but blocked as a vandal (with IP blocked from even creating a new screenname) just for having "dick" in his screenname. And if you think blocks like this this are just occasional false positives, then you are completely wrong.

But (according to admins like Everyking and Herostratus), we should encourage pedophiles to edit since they can be productive editors (just as long as they don't use words like "poop", "sexy", "retarded", "gay", etc in their screennames).

And Wikidiots wonder why people mock them.

Obviously you don't have to worry about why people mock you, as it's self-evident.

What's the link between this username and pedophiles?

[NotARepublican55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../Charliebigdick

No edits, but blocked as a vandal (with IP blocked from even creating a new screenname) just for having "dick" in his screenname. And if you think blocks like this this are just occasional false positives, then you are completely wrong.

But (according to admins like Everyking and Herostratus), we should encourage pedophiles to edit since they can be productive editors (just as long as they don't use words like "poop", "sexy", "retarded", "gay", etc in their screennames).

And Wikidiots wonder why people mock them.

Obviously you don't have to worry about why people mock you, as it's self-evident.

What's the link between this username and pedophiles?

Everyking and Herostratus are admins who believe that even convicted pedophiles should have a right to edit, yet I have a strong feeling they haven't protested screennames like these being blocked, that's my point. I personally have no problem with raunchy screennames being blocked in general (even though a lot of these blocks are over-the-top with bad faith assumed - "SmokingGunNick" was not a "spam/promotional screenname" for example).

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sat 27th February 2010, 12:58am

[Malleus]

Everyking and Herostratus are admins who believe that even convicted pedophiles should have a right to edit, yet I have a strong feeling they haven't protested screennames like these being blocked, that's my point. I personally have no problem with raunchy screennames being blocked in general (even though a lot of these blocks are over-the-top with bad faith assumed - "SmokingGunNick" was not a "spam/promotional screenname" for example).

OK. So tell me why those you believe to be convicted pedophiles, apparently without evidence, can't make helpful contributions to History of logic, for instance.

[Zoloft]

I am puzzled by this thread.

I'm trying to figure out what one thing has to do with the other... or was NotaRepublican55 just shoutin' out to a colleague who famously was once recognized as being 'a dick of porn star proportions?'

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I'm trying to figure out what one thing has to do with the other...

Come on ... it is obvious.

He is pointing out the hypocrisy, or petty superficiality, of ban hammering silly names but defending people who like sexually abusing children as long as they are named respectably. He is attempting to explore, or expose, the lack of logic and ethical consistency behind such positions.

I suspect the problem is, of course, much of the ban hammering of "bad names" goes on by the child admins of Middle American playing Pacman, as it is at their level of awareness; whereas policing pedophile threats, let alone dealing with them, is far beyond them. "The man said a bad word!"

I think I lost a sock "Fine Upstanding Member" to just one such individual, and was indefinitely banned, then later held against me. Meanwhile ... all the hard core amateur porn, pedophiliac interest, agendas and their pushers are defending.

It is the asymmetric nature of their priorities and systemic inability to see and deal with them which is concerning.

What sort of society are they trying to build? A grey humorless world inhabited by shadowy perverts behind the wings?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 27th February 2010, 11:45am

[Peter Damian]

Everyking and Herostratus are admins who believe that even convicted pedophiles should have a right to edit, yet I have a strong feeling they haven't protested screennames like these being blocked, that's my point. I personally have no problem with raunchy screennames being blocked in general (even though a lot of these blocks are over-the-top with bad faith assumed - "SmokingGunNick" was not a "spam/promotional screenname" for example).

OK. So tell me why those you believe to be convicted pedophiles, apparently without evidence, can't make helpful contributions to History of logic, for instance.

What? I'm not a convicted pedophile. Nor am I a pedophile.

I'm trying to figure out what one thing has to do with the other...

Come on ... it is obvious.

He is pointing out the hypocrisy, or petty superficiality, of ban hammering silly names but defending people who like sexually abusing children as long as they are named respectably. He is attempting to explore, or expose, the lack of logic and ethical consistency behind such positions.

Yes quite. It's bizarre that 'project pornography' members have userboxes proclaiming their absolute opposition to censorship of any kind. But quite comfortable working withing a system that allows blocking of user names, blocking of accounts, blocking of talk pages and email without any reasonable right of reply or defence.

It's an upside-down world.

[wikieyeay]

The username policy is pretty lame.

An ok set of contribs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0&target=GoatSe

and then the block log

10:55, 8 March 2007 Bubba hotep (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) (anon. only, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{username}})
11:09, 2 March 2006 Pcb21 (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Trying to undo an auto-block of me - apparently I share an IP with this guy sometimes)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (innapropriate username)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to username block)
19:29, 18 February 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR)
11:43, 3 February 2006 Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (block seems mistakec)
18:33, 2 February 2006 Inter (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (goatse ahahaha lololol)

I can't understand the purpose of the last block, the last edit was on 18th February 2006. I guess admins get bored.

[taiwopanfob]

What's the link between this username and pedophiles?

Wikipedia administrators, of course.

More links!

For example, put a real name to the screen name at Wikipedia, and the knives come out.

Try and clean up the mess of tens of thousands of long-suffering BLP victims twisting in the wind at Teh Project, and a screeching wiki-calumny is raised that rattles its very foundations. Try to do good? No sir. NO FUCKING SIR!

Basically, Malleus, Teh Project doesn't give a shit about what people on the outside of the cult call "ethics" or "morality", "logic", or even "just plain common sense". Pedophiles, outing, screen names (see also the ironic deck chair), BLP policy, and numerous other facets of Wiki-behavior can be traced to this arrogance.

[Web Fred]

What's the link between this username and pedophiles?

Wikipedia administrators, of course.

More links!

For example, put a real name to the screen name at Wikipedia, and the knives come out.

Try and clean up the mess of tens of thousands of long-suffering BLP victims twisting in the wind at Teh Project, and a screeching wiki-calumny is raised that rattles its very foundations. Try to do good? No sir. NO FUCKING SIR!

Basically, Malleus, Teh Project doesn't give a shit about what people on the outside of the cult call "ethics" or "morality", "logic", or even "just plain common sense". Pedophiles, outing, screen names (see also the ironic deck chair), BLP policy, and numerous other facets of Wiki-behavior can be traced to this arrogance.

Morals are highly over-rated and remarkably subjective.

[RMHED]

Morals are highly over-rated and remarkably subjective.

Substitute religions for morals and I'd agree 100%

[Somey]

Everyking and Herostratus are admins who believe that even convicted pedophiles should have a right to edit, yet I have a strong feeling they haven't protested screennames like these being blocked, that's my point. I personally have no problem with raunchy screennames being blocked in general (even though a lot of these blocks are over-the-top with bad faith assumed - "SmokingGunNick" was not a "spam/promotional screenname" for example).

It seems to me that the danger of pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing pedophiles to edit WP, while disallowing usernames with penis references in them and such, is that their solution to the hypocrisy is likely to be to relax the username policy. Meaning that we'll increasingly have to discuss things like the "RfC brought by User:BiggusDickus against User:GiantMonsterWang" or "the edit war between User:SexIsFun and User:GimmeThatFunkySnatch on the 'Kitchen-Utensil Porn' article."

Then again, that might not be such a bad thing, maybe... not that it isn't already fairly easy to make a mockery of Wikipedia just with the usernames they have now!

Also, to be fair, Mr. Everyking's statements on the subject of "allowing" such people on WP under certain conditions were mostly hypothetical (though still completely irresponsible, of course). IMO his position shouldn't be equated with that of Herostratus, who at one point stated flat-out that pedophiles should be encouraged to participate.

[NotARepublican55]

Rest in peace Poop3r - we hardly knew ye.

Made a good edit too, but got hard-blocked as a vandal due to some admin's pants-wetting fear of poopoo. The admin even reverted his edit as "vandalism"

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sun 28th February 2010, 7:26am

[Zoloft]

Rest in peace Poop3r - we hardly knew ye.

Made a good edit too, but got hard-blocked as a vandal due to some admin's pants-wetting fear of poopoo.

The blocking admin is probably suffering from issues due to traumatic toilet training.

[NotARepublican55]

Rest in peace Poop3r - we hardly knew ye.

Made a good edit too, but got hard-blocked as a vandal due to some admin's pants-wetting fear of poopoo.

The blocking admin is probably suffering from issues due to traumatic toilet training.

Probably so. Looks like the admin (The Anome) even reverted his edit as "vandalism" too.

"Poop in your screenname" = "Edits must be bad" while "Apologizing for pedophilia" = "Can be a legit editor." according to WikiEthics. I rest my case.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sun 28th February 2010, 7:46am

[NotARepublican55]

The username policy is pretty lame.

An ok set of contribs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0&target=GoatSe

and then the block log

10:55, 8 March 2007 Bubba hotep (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) (anon. only, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{username}})
11:09, 2 March 2006 Pcb21 (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Trying to undo an auto-block of me - apparently I share an IP with this guy sometimes)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (innapropriate username)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to username block)
19:29, 18 February 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR)
11:43, 3 February 2006 Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (block seems mistakec)
18:33, 2 February 2006 Inter (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (goatse ahahaha lololol)

I can't understand the purpose of the last block, the last edit was on 18th February 2006. I guess admins get bored.

That, and they occasionally get nice perks for their "work"

"In recognition of your swift response to vandalism on Buttplug, I, Anilocra, award you this Golden Butt Plug."

[Milton Roe]

The username policy is pretty lame.

An ok set of contribs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0&target=GoatSe

and then the block log

10:55, 8 March 2007 Bubba hotep (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) (anon. only, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{username}})
11:09, 2 March 2006 Pcb21 (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Trying to undo an auto-block of me - apparently I share an IP with this guy sometimes)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (innapropriate username)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to username block)
19:29, 18 February 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR)
11:43, 3 February 2006 Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (block seems mistakec)
18:33, 2 February 2006 Inter (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (goatse ahahaha lololol)

I can't understand the purpose of the last block, the last edit was on 18th February 2006. I guess admins get bored.

That, and they occasionally get nice perks for their "work"

"In recognition of your swift response to vandalism on Buttplug, I, Anilocra, award you this Golden Butt Plug."

And for Doc Glasgow, for unblocking GoatSe as a mistake, even though he had been blocked on username alone, on the great tradition of the Wikipedia which is too distracted to allow Nipple37---- a great big clueless doofus of the day award. And a link to Goatse.

What's the link between this username and pedophiles?

Wikipedia administrators, of course.

More links!

For example, put a real name to the screen name at Wikipedia, and the knives come out.

Try and clean up the mess of tens of thousands of long-suffering BLP victims twisting in the wind at Teh Project, and a screeching wiki-calumny is raised that rattles its very foundations. Try to do good? No sir. NO FUCKING SIR!

Basically, Malleus, Teh Project doesn't give a shit about what people on the outside of the cult call "ethics" or "morality", "logic", or even "just plain common sense". Pedophiles, outing, screen names (see also the ironic deck chair), BLP policy, and numerous other facets of Wiki-behavior can be traced to this arrogance.

Morals are highly over-rated and remarkably subjective.

Depends on the morals. The golden rule is not overrated. And when you're at the uh-oh end of it, you'd be amazed at how objective it is.

[NotARepublican55]

The username policy is pretty lame.

An ok set of contribs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0&target=GoatSe

and then the block log

10:55, 8 March 2007 Bubba hotep (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) (anon. only, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{username}})
11:09, 2 March 2006 Pcb21 (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Trying to undo an auto-block of me - apparently I share an IP with this guy sometimes)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (innapropriate username)
20:39, 18 February 2006 Jtkiefer (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to username block)
19:29, 18 February 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR)
11:43, 3 February 2006 Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) unblocked "GoatSe (talk | contribs)" ‎ (block seems mistakec)
18:33, 2 February 2006 Inter (talk | contribs) blocked GoatSe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (goatse ahahaha lololol)

I can't understand the purpose of the last block, the last edit was on 18th February 2006. I guess admins get bored.

That, and they occasionally get nice perks for their "work"

"In recognition of your swift response to vandalism on Buttplug, I, Anilocra, award you this Golden Butt Plug."

And for Doc Glasgow, for unblocking GoatSe as a mistake, even though he had been blocked on username alone, on the great tradition of the Wikipedia which is too distracted to allow Nipple37---- a great big clueless doofus of the day award. And a link to Goatse.

Am I the only one who's pronouncing his name as "anal okra"?

[CharlotteWebb]

Substitute religions for morals and I'd agree 100%

That's a hair-splitting distinction.

[Web Fred]

Depends on the morals. The golden rule is not overrated. And when you're at the uh-oh end of it, you'd be amazed at how objective it is.

"Depends on" - sounds subjective to me.

Any moral based on religious ethics rather than common-sense and logic is, as far as I am concerned, to be ignored and even experimented with.