Commons and Pro-Pedophilia Options

[Ottava]

Sue,

On Commons, multiple admin are claiming that pedophiles do nothing wrong and should be allowed to edit. Kameraad Pjotr, one such admin, unblocked a pedophile (who admitted to being a pedophile before and edited multiple pages on multiple projects dealing with pedophilia in a pro-pedophilia manner). Many of his supporters claim that such is acceptable.

You have stated that we have a zero tolerance for pedophiles. In my work with Wikiversity, we determined that since we work with schools (both College and High Schools), we cannot allow pedophiles or the promotion of such material to interfere with us, as it would ruin our reputation. Commons is a project that connects to all others, and being linked to it is highly damaging to our objectives of having a safe and educational environment.

Can you and the WMF please take the appropriate measures to ensure that pedophiles are stopped and that admin who out of process unblock them and saying that "pedophiles do nothing wrong" no longer have the authority and ability to continue in this manner? Otherwise, Wikiversity will take yet another hit, as well as the other projects, if we are linked to such blatantly and unacceptable pro-pedophilia advocacy.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)




The link. I'm sick of those people.

[Moulton]

I'm sick of those people.

So you're sick too?

Wow.

Whole lotta sickness going 'round.

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue,

On Commons, multiple admin are claiming that pedophiles do nothing wrong and should be allowed to edit. Kameraad Pjotr, one such admin, unblocked a pedophile (who admitted to being a pedophile before and edited multiple pages on multiple projects dealing with pedophilia in a pro-pedophilia manner). Many of his supporters claim that such is acceptable.

You have stated that we have a zero tolerance for pedophiles. In my work with Wikiversity, we determined that since we work with schools (both College and High Schools), we cannot allow pedophiles or the promotion of such material to interfere with us, as it would ruin our reputation. Commons is a project that connects to all others, and being linked to it is highly damaging to our objectives of having a safe and educational environment.

Can you and the WMF please take the appropriate measures to ensure that pedophiles are stopped and that admin who out of process unblock them and saying that "pedophiles do nothing wrong" no longer have the authority and ability to continue in this manner? Otherwise, Wikiversity will take yet another hit, as well as the other projects, if we are linked to such blatantly and unacceptable pro-pedophilia advocacy.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)




The link. I'm sick of those people.

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

[tarantino]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

[Ottava]

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

It is sick that some people say such awful things here, like "Why can't we judge paedophiles, just like all the other users, by the quality of their contributions and not by their sexual orientation."

Yeah, heaven forbid we keep them from harassing our minors!!!

God damn those people make me sick. I hope Fox News and the rest reveal the sick stuff going on there and the outrageous positions gmaxwell is willing to defend as part of his anti WMF vendetta.

[Moulton]

Seems to me Sue Gardner owes you an answer.

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

Hrmm. Now it has become a "Cross-Wiki Issue." And I see that Gmaxwell blanked it on WV, whereupon you blocked him.

Ottava, you are an involved Custodian. You need to recuse yourself from using the tools when you have a personal conflict with another editor. What you are doing is bringing negative attention to Wikiversity and undermining what little reputation it still has a venue of responsible scholarly review.

It is sick that some people say such awful things here, like "Why can't we judge paedophiles, just like all the other users, by the quality of their contributions and not by their sexual orientation."

If the individual in question has violated a published policy, then whoever makes that allegation is obliged to prove it. Even if it's an open and shut case, a prosecutor still has to make the case, to demonstrate that whatever remedies are being imposed, they are carried out with diligent due process.

Yeah, heaven forbid we keep them from harassing our minors!!!

If I read you correctly, you are advocating punishing someone whom you only fear might possibly commit a future offense. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.

God damn those people make me sick. I hope Fox News and the rest reveal the sick stuff going on there and the outrageous positions gmaxwell is willing to defend as part of his anti WMF vendetta.

Perhaps you will make yourself avaiable to be interviewed by Jana Winter. Larry Sanger can probably put you in touch with her.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

Let's face it at that age one really understands very little about real life ... especially if one has spent the last 4 years of it investing one's time into Wiki online cult.

[EricBarbour]

Kameraad Pjotr is just some 19 year old kid from Belgium named Pieter De Praetere. He first became an admin at age 15 on nlwiki. That he was allowed to be an admin at that age is just one of the many failures that lead to where WMF projects stand now.

Let's face it at that age one really understands very little about real life ... especially if one has spent the last 4 years of it investing one's time into Wiki online cult.

The freaks who run the WMF love boys of his ilk.

Enthusiastic, ignorant, easy to manipulate. Plenty of energy for marathon ban-revert sessions.
Sorta like, well, you know.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

I'm not so sure that's the "definition of advocacy," but I have to admit, I'm a little alarmed by this admonition from Ms. Gardner, directed at you:

Ottava Rima, please don't make wild, overreaching accusations about other editors: it's not responsible. Thanks.

Putting aside the supreme irony of the WMF Executive Director saying that someone else is being "not responsible," do you think she's referring to Greg Maxwell and Kameraad Pjotr exclusively, or is she including Tyciol in that group too?

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

[Moulton]

The thing is, even if those "in the know" know with certainty that some individuals have a problematic agenda, you still have to respect the process, lest it become too easy and too tempting to pin a stigmatic label on anyone you dislike and bypass due process. If you are going to level an accusation that, if true, would justify a sanction, you damned well better prove it before a skeptical jury. Protecting due process is more important than nabbing a shady character with a worrisome agenda.

[GlassBeadGame]

I moved it to Wikiversity because gmaxwell insists in embarrassing Kat Walsh by defending someone by saying that wanting to ban pedophiles is a "witch hunt". That is the definition of advocacy.

I'm not so sure that's the "definition of advocacy," but I have to admit, I'm a little alarmed by this admonition from Ms. Gardner, directed at you:

Ottava Rima, please don't make wild, overreaching accusations about other editors: it's not responsible. Thanks.

Putting aside the supreme irony of the WMF Executive Director saying that someone else is being "not responsible," do you think she's referring to Greg Maxwell and Kameraad Pjotr exclusively, or is she including Tyciol in that group too?

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy. I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

[Somey]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy.

Well, absolutely - he has to be good for something, after all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So where are all the calm, rational, reasonable and responsible people on Commons who might object to things like the lolicon images, or unblocking Tyciol, or what-have-you? Are they all on vacation, or is it more like what I suspect, which is that once the free-culture, moral-relativism crowd take over (as they clearly have on Commons), people who might otherwise insist on doing the right thing just head for the hills, for fear of being implicated with pornographers and pedophiles, and maybe having their homes raided by the cops?

I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

She almost certainly knows Greg Maxwell personally, right? What with him being married to Kat "Mindspillage" Walsh, who's on the Board. As for Ottava, well... not likely he's going to be elected to the Board any time soon.

[Moulton]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny.

And therein lies the Wisdom of the Ages.

Not everyone subscribes to the Teachings of Moses, but one of his teachings is enshrined in the ninth of the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

OK, so let us Bear Witness (and let it be Accurate Witness).

But then what? What punishment shall we mete out?

You will note that the Ten Commandments do not prescribe any sanctions at all.

And that's the point.

It suffices to Bear Accurate Witness, no more, no less.

The point being that people generally behave when there are enough eyeballs on them.

And if an intervention is ever needed, it's to rescue the would-be victim, not to punish the would-be predator.

Punishing people generally tends to make them sicker.

Right, Jeff?

[Alison]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Moulton]

And so we have the Karpman Drama Model here in spades. Except that the roles are reversed from one Wiki (Yin) to another (Yang). Which is to say, we gots dramah up the YinYang.

[SB_Johnny]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Well, it might also be about what's happened here over the past several days as well. IIRC, in the past he's run into the britches breaches on commons and meta after sharpening up his arguments here.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cedric]

Just so yaz know, Ottava is now indefinitely blocked on Commons by Gmaxwell, while Tyciol runs free (and making plenty of maintenance edits. Won't be long before adminship!). I'm guessing the indef on Commons for Ottava was more about whatever happened on Wikiversity yesterday.

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I can confirm he has indeed been reading here lately.

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/Guild_Navigator.jpg)

"I was not here. I did not say this."

[taiwopanfob]

Hey Ty - since you're reading this, did you pick up the Black genitalia link from reading here yesterday? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=41168820

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

The comment that inspired the above was, incredibly, even more inane.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=41166120

You make a joke? The title is from reputable artist Peter Klashorst himself, as far as I know. This cannot be changed without destructing the artist's approach. If you don't like it, don't use it. Ah, I see, all those Klashorst images are deleted at flickr and can't be checked again - we have to trust FlickreviewR bot, which confirmed all is ok - Smial

The "artist" (cough) in question runs a website:

http://www.bullshit-artist.com/

wherein the pornographic "bullshit" is kept behind an "18-plus" door. One might think that it's mere presence on Commons would itself be "destructing the artist's approach", but I fear to disturb the gathering of these titans...

[dogbiscuit]

But Ottava is correct to target them for scrutiny. In doing so he keeps Ms. Gardner's feet to the fire concerning the falseness of her assertion that WMF has a "zero tolerance" policy.

Well, absolutely - he has to be good for something, after all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So where are all the calm, rational, reasonable and responsible people on Commons who might object to things like the lolicon images, or unblocking Tyciol, or what-have-you? Are they all on vacation, or is it more like what I suspect, which is that once the free-culture, moral-relativism crowd take over (as they clearly have on Commons), people who might otherwise insist on doing the right thing just head for the hills, for fear of being implicated with pornographers and pedophiles, and maybe having their homes raided by the cops?

I'm surprised that her defense of "the tolerators" would be so blatant.

She almost certainly knows Greg Maxwell personally, right? What with him being married to Kat "Mindspillage" Walsh, who's on the Board. As for Ottava, well... not likely he's going to be elected to the Board any time soon.

I would have thought the press would be singularly unimpressed by an open admission that she says one thing to the press while holding an entirely different opinion. Lawyering the words after the fact rarely looks good. Meanwhile, that WikiMirror world carries on where even the definition of "zero-tolerance" is up for debate, with GMaxwell more concerned over the "right" to contribute to commons than the issue that the whole project is being undermined by groups who are running a successful campaign of infiltration to promote and normalise illegal activities - using techniques that succeed exactly because the powers that be refuse to acknowledge common sense - or they are using some measure of common sense that relates approximately to the administrative maturity of the Wikimedia projects.

[Moulton]

A fish rots from the head down.

[Ottava]

I'd say the more appropriate term for Maxwell and this Pjotr dude would be something like "pedophile tolerators," or maybe "pedophile-tolerance advocates" (more accurate but alas, longer) - given her recent statement to the media folks. I mean, they're not really advocating pedophilia, at least not directly.

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy, as both terms used to describe the -banning- of pedophiles is to make it seem like pedophilia is comparable to religious beliefs.

It is associating pedophilia with something other than what it is - an incurable illness that cannot be tolerated and need to be prevented in every possible way to ensure that they cannot get near children. Even the Supreme Court said that they are so horrible that they can be kept in jail beyond their sentence simply for the social good.

[Moulton]

One wonders if what JWSchmidt calls the "Wikipedia Disease" is curable.

[Somey]

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy...

He really said "fascist"? Yikes, that's dangerously close to "Godwin" territory. We know they have zero tolerance for that, at least.

Anyhoo, I'm just trying to be practical here. I suppose it could be said to be "pedophile advocacy" in the narrow context of Wikipedia, or even the interwebs in general, but he's not going to get arrested, tried and convicted in a US court of law purely on that basis. (Unfortunately! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) )

...as both terms used to describe the -banning- of pedophiles is to make it seem like pedophilia is comparable to religious beliefs.

Well, that's just extreme Randroid libertarianism for you - "we make our own morality" and so on. We do know that Mr. Maxwell is not a religious person; indeed he might even be described as "anti-religious" to some degree. (Remember he was directly involved, along with User:Cyde, in that whole business a few years ago with the spinning crucifix images in WP's Christian userboxes.) That was covered on WR here (though note that the thread was started by Hushthis, not Lir).

...an incurable illness...

I dunno about "incurable" - I mean, even if you completely disallow the notion that psychological counseling or drug therapies can reduce or eliminate the risk that a pedophile poses to a community, there's always chemical (or even surgical) castration, right? Admittedly those are real-world things, so I guess such a person could still do the whole advocacy thing on the internet, but "incurable" still seems a bit harsh.

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/Guild_Navigator.jpg)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/BrainbugStarShipTroopers.jpg)

I thought we might put up a gallery of sci-fi monsters from the id, for Ottava's delectation.

The Langoliers and pussymonsters are going to eat you, Ottava! Scamper, scamper!

.

[gmaxwheel]

Greg Maxwell here, rolling in with a clue-bat (or is it a silver hammer?). I would have posted this previously, but it took forever to get a working account. As a consequence I've had some time to think about what I would say, so you get the double length essay today.

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Prior to Ottava's allegations that I was a pedophila advocate I had not had _any_ involvement in this commons "pedophile blocking discussion" as I have been busy with other projects lately. I received a watch-list notice after Ottava was blocked again for incivility and harassment. I reviewed his recent contributions and reached the conclusion that the behaviour which had resulted in multiple prior blocks, a ban on English Wikipedia, moderation on foundation-l, etc. appeared to be getting worse, not better. Ottava does a disservice to his own views, and anyone else who happens to share them, as his unreasonable actions make them look unreasonable.

His latest feat involved some baseless slander, where he accused some commons user of being a supporter of pedophilia. Disagreement is a good thing, even strong, sternly worded disagreement is fine, and telling someone that their ideas are harmful and dangerous is a good thing if you believe it. But slandering people like that is not acceptable. Calling people who do not support pedophilia supporters weakens the allegation against real supporters, and it risks significant damage to the life of the victim and their families. It's not acceptable when Wikipedia's sloppy process lets it happen to random members of the public, and it's not acceptable when users do it to each other. This pattern of overstepping acceptable criticism into outright slander is among the behaviours which contributed to Ottava's ban on English Wikipedia. On this basis I felt that rama's block was appropriate.

In any case, and not particularly related to this specific incident, the lack of improvement in his interactions with others was sufficient evidence to me that further short term blocks were not going to be productive and would only waste more time and emotion from everyone involved. Accordingly, I increased the block to indefinite where it currently remains.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was enough to also get me branded... and now Ottava claims to be mass-mailing the media with evidence of my "promotion of pedophilia", smearing me here and on Wikiversity, etc.

Let me set the record straight. The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander. I believe that he knows that they are untrue, but he is saying them because he is angry at me and because he believes they will cause people to blindly support him. Stated bluntly and without equivocation: I do not support pedophiles or pedophilia, I believe these people and their practices are harmful and ill and ought to be rejected in the strongest way possible— not just on Wikipedia, but especially on Wikipedia. I have expressed my disapproval elsewhere, but these statements are being conveniently ignored here for the sake of smearing me.

I believe it would also be inaccurate to describe me as tolerant of paedophilia supporters— but tolerant is a relative term. As a straw man example, the criminally insane who support vigilante assaults on 'suspected' pedophiles might call me tolerant. I think you may be looking to the wrong person if you want to cast aspersions of tolerance: I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith. "Even when the church tries to forgive its sinners and guide them to back to what is right, the media attacks the pope and blames the church for not taking draconian measures. [...] We must think of the attacks as a test of our faith,"

Because it is too amusing to fail to mention: I could see one of the more extreme Wikipedia cultists making the same excuse against solid Wikipedia criticism, just substituting Wiki for Church, and Jimmy for the pope... and perhaps community as a substitute for faith.

As to the happening on commons, I've subsequently waded in and commented some... and made a personal commitment to make sure it gets sorted out. For the most part this discussion is a lot of sound and light signifying nothing— people are wasting a lot of energy splitting hairs over some trolling which could otherwise be easily and quietly resolved. Meanwhile, no doubt, some real advocates of pedophilia continue unrestrained.

As a wise person said to me earlier today, "Wikipedia doesn't have governance; it has community drama". If your goal is to see real reform in Wikipedia you should cast a critical eye at every dispute and decide if it is a real issue, just some political gamesmanship, or random petty drama... and avoid fanning the drama and those who would promote it, because it obstructs the evolution of real governance.

(Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama. The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will. When you get pulled into the drama you degrade your credibility as a legitimate critic)

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for your time,

This post has been edited by gmaxwheel:

[Milton Roe]

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for bringing to our attention how trollish Ottava Rima is over on WP. We were unaware of it. Let's face it-- most of us not only don't read Wikipedia, we don't even read the stuff here.

Ottava is an influential WR member because we're mostly practicing Catholics, and we would like to see the Pope get more respect. Pluss, Ottava can spell and a lot of the rest of us cant.

You should consider the lulz of having Ottava accuse everybody on WP of pedophilia, and everybody on WR also. Where is your sense of humor. Seriously.

Thank you for your time and bringing this to our attention. Your points have previously been considered here, but Mr. Ed (one of our members) finally convinced us the lulz was worth any misunderstanding.

Best,

WR

[gmaxwheel]

Saying that the zero tolerance of pedophiles is "witch craft", or, as he said on IRC, "fascist", is advocacy...

He really said "fascist"? Yikes, that's dangerously close to "Godwin" territory. We know they have zero tolerance for that, at least.

Ottava is again spreading lies to smear my character. Not only did I never say "fascist" or "witch craft", I haven't actually had a discussion about the blocking on pedophiles on IRC, so I wouldn't have had an opportunity to say those things even if I did believe them to be applicable.

As far as the Christian userbox goes... At least from my perspective the joke was that we were advocating that advocacy userboxes should have to be NPOV (Ben may have been more in it for the 'lulz' for all I know). The actual text of the userbox was a complete NPOV not at all critical bit of writing which I would stand by today.

At the time my perspective on the spinning cross the appeared at one point was just more sillyness — 'showing all sides of the issue'. This shows a more than a little bit of cultural ignorance and insensitivity: I was completely unaware that depicting the cross upside down is considered to be sacrilegious. It probably should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't, and I regretted any involvement I had in that part deeply once I was made aware of it. I hope the text of the box makes it clear that I wasn't attempting to offend people in that manner.

I think a contributing factor that makes Wikipedia more unmanagable is that people often take the wrong things seriously. E.g. harmless violation of some policy minutia, or some sillyness in the user pages is a BIG CRIME. But spreading some nasty libel, ignoring the law, facilitating predators, or whatever is often "someone elses problem" or just "no big deal". So I see nothing wrong with some sillyness here and there as it can help lend some perspective on what really matters.

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg Maxwell here, rolling in with a clue-bat. I would have posted this previously, but it took forever to get a working account. As a consequence I've had some time to think about what I would say, so you get the double length essay today.

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Prior to Ottava's allegations that I was a pedophila advocate I had not had _any_ involvement in this commons "pedophile blocking discussion" as I have been busy with other projects lately. I received a watch-list notice after Ottava was blocked again for incivility and harassment. I reviewed his recent contributions and reached the conclusion that the behaviour which had resulted in multiple prior blocks, a ban on English Wikipedia, moderation on foundation-l, etc. appeared to be getting worse, not better. Ottava does a disservice to his own views, and anyone else who happens to share them, as his unreasonable actions make them look unreasonable.

His latest feat involved some baseless slander, where he accused some commons user of being a supporter of pedophilia. Disagreement is a good thing, even strong, sternly worded disagreement is fine, and telling someone that their ideas are harmful and dangerous is a good thing if you believe it. But slandering people like that is not acceptable. Calling people who do not support pedophilia supporters weakens the allegation against real supporters, and it risks significant damage to the live of the victim and their families. It's not acceptable when Wikipedia's sloppy process lets it happen to random members of the public, and it's not acceptable when users do it to each other. This pattern of overstepping acceptable criticism into outright slander is among the behaviours which contributed to Ottava's ban on English Wikipedia. On this basis I felt that rama's block was appropriate.

In any case, and not particularly related to this specific incident, the lack of improvement in his interactions with others was sufficient evidence to me that further short term blocks were not going to be productive and would only waste more time and emotion from everyone involved. Accordingly, I increased the block to indefinite where it currently remains.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was enough to also get me branded... and now Ottava claims to be mass-mailing the media with evidence of my "promotion of pedophilia", smearing me here and on Wikiversity, etc.

Let me set the record straight. The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander. I believe that he knows that they are untrue, but he is saying them because he is angry at me and because he believes they will cause people to blindly support him. Stated bluntly and without equivocation: I do not support pedophiles or pedophilia, I believe these people and their practices are harmful and ill and ought to be rejected in the strongest way possible— not just on Wikipedia, but especially on Wikipedia. I have expressed my disapproval elsewhere, but these statements are being conveniently ignored here for the sake of smearing me.

I believe it would also be inaccurate to describe me as tolerant of paedophilia supporters— but that is a relative term. As a straw man example, the criminally insane who support vigilante assaults on 'suspected' pedophiles might call me tolerant. Considering Ottava's proud affiliations, I think you may be looking to the wrong person if you want to cast aspersions of tolerance. I've seen several newspaper editorials by Ottava attacking homosexuals seeking the right to marry, attacking the state for entertaining that right, but for the Catholic Church's continued mishandling of the pedophile priests debacle he offers only defence and claims that the critics are attacking the Catholic faith. "Even when the church tries to forgive its sinners and guide them to back to what is right, the media attacks the pope and blames the church for not taking draconian measures. [...] We must think of the attacks as a test of our faith,"

Because it is too amusing to fail to mention: I could see one of the more extreme Wikipedia cultists making the same excuse against solid Wikipedia criticism, just substituting Wiki for Church, and Jimmy for the pope... and perhaps community as a substitute for faith.

As to the happening on commons, I've subsequently waded in and commented some... and made a personal commitment to make sure it gets sorted out. For the most part this discussion is a lot of sound and light signifying nothing— people are wasting a lot of energy splitting hairs over some trolling which could otherwise be easily and quietly resolved. Meanwhile, no doubt, some real advocates of pedophilia continue unrestrained.

As a wise person said to me earlier today, "Wikipedia doesn't have governance; it has community drama". If your goal is to see real reform in Wikipedia you should cast a critical eye at every dispute and decide if it is a real issue, just some political gamesmanship, or random petty drama... and avoid fanning the drama and those who would promote it, because it obstructs the evolution of real governance.

(Of course, if your goal is just to bring Wikipedia down— you should also stay clear of the drama. The almost infinite drama that exists currently hasn't killed it, so it seems no amount of drama will. When you get pulled into the drama you degrade your credibility as a legitimate critic)

I hope Wikipedia review will set a better example for Wikipedia and do a better job keeping these kinds of dangerous allegations out of the public view where someone— unfamiliar with how trollish some of your members are— will not stumble onto them.

Thank you for your time,

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

[thekohser]

His latest feat involved some baseless slander...

The claims Ottava is making about me here are vicious slander.

I prefer to call it "libel" when it's the written word, but I'm old school. These Internet kids tell me that libel and slander are interchangeable these days.

Greg, there's only room for one Greg on Wikipedia Review, so that's why we're letting Ottava get away with crazy text on here. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Ottava's lost touch with reality, and we find it amusing.

[gmaxwheel]

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

For how many years did you allow nathanr to hang around here, ... Andrew Morrow? Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

The situation with Tyciol will be taken care of, but at the same time I have not seen any cause to worry that things must be done _urgently_, so long that doing it urgently will probably have a worse outcome. He has not been using his account on commons to secretly farm inappropriate relationships with children, etc.

I'm not aware of this tolerance of which you speak, so it's hard to say that I have no problems with it. I would not be the first to call myself ignorant and that may be the case here, however, so feel free to clue me in via email. (gmaxwell- a t -gmail works fine).

[Ottava]

If a WR mod wants copies of the IRC chat, including where Gmaxwell used Kat Walsh's IRC ops (as he is not granted ops himself there according to others who are ops at IRC), I am happy to send the log.


To be honest, if Gmaxwell didn't want to defend pedophiles, then he shouldn't say a zero-tolerance policy is akin to a "witch hunt".

He not only said that on my user talk page but in the block log. This was a block that came over 24 hours after four other admin said that Pjotr was in the wrong, not I, and that Pjotr's warning was inappropriate. This was from a guy who didn't edit since he waged war against Jimbo to protect the porn on Commons, porn freely accessible to children, including "art" of children having sex with adults. This was from a guy who protected many of those people who blatantly wheel warred, blocked inappropriately, and outright harassed multiple users.

I also find it interesting that he and many of his friends who are so libertarian to think that pedophiles don't cause any harm and that zero-tolerance is fascist don't seem to have a problem with the zero-tolerance of Nazis in Germany. I guess only genocidal pedophiles deserve zero-tolerance and that the ones who only completely destroy the lives of a handful aren't quite to that level.

Gmaxwell has shown a complete disrespect to every single policy on Commons, to every possible ethical standard, aided the endangerment of thousands of child editors at the WMF, and abused Kat Walsh's ops multiple times in abuse on IRC and harassment on IRC. It seems that Gmaxwell wants to singlehandedly make the WMF the most reviled system on the whole of the internet and is getting away with every possible abuse.


Wikipedia Review, I give you your champion, the one who was born simply to hasten the day as many of you so badly desire!


If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Gmaxwell, quitely remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much destruction. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but hate, disruption, and abuse. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple legal fronts with its dangerous protection of inappropriate "artwork" and people who have no right even being near children.

[SB_Johnny]

Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

Hi Greg. We met once (and you seem like a nice guy), so I'll say what the other guys said in a way you don't have to puzzle through or parse:

1. Nobody here takes Ottava seriously.
2. He's accused quite a few of us of being pedos or pedo apologists (very much targeting me and at least one of the mods), so , uh Welcome to WR!
3. Ottava can be quite amusing once you realize he's a knucklehead, especially if you're sufficiently socially adept to realize that everyone else thinks he's an amusing knucklehead too.
4. If you hang out a bit, you'll find that WR is actually (and perhaps surprisingly) primarily populated by socially adept people who happen to enjoy giving people rope. Especially to knuckleheads. And we've got plenty of rope for everyone. Even enough for you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

SB_Johnny speaks the truth, Greg.

[gmaxwheel]

Hi Greg. We met once (and you seem like a nice guy), so I'll say what the other guys said in a way you don't have to puzzle through or parse:

1. Nobody here takes Ottava seriously.
2. He's accused quite a few of us of being pedos or pedo apologists (very much targeting me and at least one of the mods), so , uh Welcome to WR!
3. Ottava can be quite amusing once you realize he's a knucklehead, especially if you're sufficiently socially adept to realize that everyone else thinks he's an amusing knucklehead too.
4. If you hang out a bit, you'll find that WR is actually (and perhaps surprisingly) primarily populated by socially adept people who happen to enjoy giving people rope. Especially to knuckleheads. And we've got plenty of rope for everyone. Even enough for you! :lol:

Sure, I know that half of you are engaging in lunatic-bating (and a few of the other half are the lunatics). Not my cup of tea, or at least I really don't want it to be my cup of tea, which is one reason why I've never posted before. The worthlessness of some of the comments here won't be so clear to someone that gets sent a hyperlink here or ends up in via a google search. I at least wanted to be sure that everywhere these claims were made there was a firm rebuttal. That is all.

In any case, I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. :)

[Moulton]

I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, at least he's an honest admin when it comes to self-criticism.

[dogbiscuit]

Greg, the fundamental problem is that you and your associates go to great lengths to support deliberately vague policies based on some lunatic fringe of freedom.

In the real world, nobody would willingly associate with people who professed to be anti-social in whatever form. I see that you attempt to ingratiate yourself with the WikiMob, and see no problem with Sue Gardner telling the press who report to the rational world one thing, and tell the Wikipediots another, reinforcing their delusions.

Sue Garder's dissembling is highly inappropriate.

In the end, would Wikipedia's content be worse off without the contributions of, say, paedophiles? I struggle to see how you can say yes to that, knowing that they have been deliberately distorting content which we have documented. Are young people put at risk by the WMF refusing to put in place even the message, let alone mechanisms to support the principle, that Wikipedia is not a child grooming site.

So while I sympathise with you that you may have been the target for Ottava's bile, anyone who has read his outpourings knows not to give much weight to his opinion. However, he is right in principle, that Wikipedia has done worse than nothing about the potential for abuse. Wikipedia is a looking glass world where common sense is derided as delusional foolishness, and those who espouse activities that are unacceptable or unlawful in the real world are treated with undue dereference.

WR is not an irrational environment. Writers here are quire capable of recognising the sensible and the abusers within Wikipedia. If you associate yourself with Jimbo's "I see no ships" philosophy of problem handling, then you are due the criticism and approbation that being a mindless lackey to a bankrupt project deserves. Do you actually read what the nutters write about the policy? Simply put, they make no sense.

The solution is simple. Implement zero tolerance, not only of pedophiles, but anyone who seeks to make Wikipedia a game rather than a serious exercise. What is the worst that can happen? You might actually produce an encyclopedia. You can't do it because you are all barking mad, believing your own propaganda because you've been involved for so long. It is about time the WMF stopped ignoring what goes on in Wikipedia and grasped it is something that proper governance could solve*.


* Ok I am probably exaggerating, but trying wouldn't do any harm.

[GlassBeadGame]

So Ottava is banned and Tyciol is running around free on your site and your ok with that? That doesn't make you a "pedophile advocate" but it does make a liar out of Sue Gardner for her "zero tolerance for pedophilia" claim. WMF and its sites in fact have an extraordinary degree of tolerance for pedophiles. It is no credit to your character that you have no problem with this fact.

For how many years did you allow nathanr to hang around here, ... Andrew Morrow? Ottava isn't blocked on WR (that isn't to say that I think ottava is in the same class of intolerable as these people... I don't, and for all I know he has been a star contributor here except where he was defaming me (happy greg?)... But I could still make the same argument that because he isn't banned _this_ _instant_, the operators of this forum are somehow morally suspect).

The situation with Tyciol will be taken care of, but at the same time I have not seen any cause to worry that things must be done _urgently_, so long that doing it urgently will probably have a worse outcome. He has not been using his account on commons to secretly farm inappropriate relationships with children, etc.

I'm not aware of this tolerance of which you speak, so it's hard to say that I have no problems with it. I would not be the first to call myself ignorant and that may be the case here, however, so feel free to clue me in via email. (gmaxwell- a t -gmail works fine).

Try to understand this shithead: We are not the Big Fucking Encyclopedia. We do not encourage hundreds of thousands of children to collaborate with adults. We COPPA screen children. We actively discourage child participation. We are not the WR of Amorrow.

I think the outcome you risk from your lackadaisical (and tolerant) attitude towards pedophiles is the sexual exploitation of children. If I had a family member on the WMF B/T I would be very concerned about this. I not going to email you, asshole. Clean your own house.

[MZMcBride]

What the @#$ is wrong with you people at Wikipedia Review? You claim to care deeply by all the people being libelled as the collateral damage of the irresponsible operating operating policies of Wikipedia, but you're perfectly happy to let your own members spread the most vicious libel on your own forum?

Agreed. A lot of the regular posters and mods here really do view themselves as "freedom fighters" of a sort. A few comments over the past year have said as much explicitly (along the lines of "we're happy to be defending/protecting whatever"). There's a battle mentality, and we all know that all's fair in war, right? Of course the cost of taking the tactics that some of the people here take is the moral high ground, but I don't think these people were interested in that in the first place.

[SB_Johnny]

Sure, I know that half of you are engaging in lunatic-bating (and a few of the other half are the lunatics). Not my cup of tea, or at least I really don't want it to be my cup of tea, which is one reason why I've never posted before. The worthlessness of some of the comments here won't be so clear to someone that gets sent a hyperlink here or ends up in via a google search. I at least wanted to be sure that everywhere these claims were made there was a firm rebuttal. That is all.

In any case, I've got some more powers to abuse before I fill my quota for the day. Thanks for the welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, baiting the lunatics is a bit more honest than going through the endless cycles of AGF, BITE, and CIVIL in an attempt not to be sen as baiting the lunatics. And (as GBG notes above), WR is just a web forum (which people take a bit too seriously sometimes), not an encyclopedia (which people take waaay to seriously most of the time). WYSIWYG.

You do have a point about the actual point being not at all clear, of course. The "editorials" section (linked at the top) is a bit more coherent if you're really unsure what the point is.

Have fun abusing teh powerz. Pop on back when you hit the moment of clarity and wonder why you bother with all that nonsense. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

If the Board had any sense, they would 100% disassociate themselves from Gmaxwell, quitely remove any possible ops, and keep him in a place where his mouthing off and inappropriate conduct would not cause so much destruction. In his history at WMF, he produced nothing but hate, disruption, and abuse. Now, he goes so deep that he is endangering the WMF on multiple legal fronts with its dangerous protection of inappropriate "artwork" and people who have no right even being near children.

Wow, Ottava, that's quite the overreaction to being blocked, don't you think?