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

[gomi]

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

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

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

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

[dtobias]

So, basically, what people here are saying is not that Everyking is a pedophile, or even that he supports pedophile activity in any way; merely the "meta-issue" that, in terms of Wikipedia internal policy, he opposes banning all pedophiles from editing. This is a position on Wikipedia policy, not on pedophilia per se, but apparently it's a thoughtcrime for which he should be desysopped. How many meta-levels do you people want to carry this?

LEVEL 0: Somebody who is a pedophile
LEVEL 1: Somebody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 2: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 3: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
...and so on

You can have meta-thoughtcrimes to the infinite degree!

Something rather similar happened during the BADSITES Wars, when the SlimVirgin / ElinorD crowd not only wanted to ban linking to evil harassment sites like Wikipedia Review, they wanted to take action against people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who condoned linking to them, and so on.

[everyking]

So, basically, what people here are saying is not that Everyking is a pedophile, or even that he supports pedophile activity in any way; merely the "meta-issue" that, in terms of Wikipedia internal policy, he opposes banning all pedophiles from editing. This is a position on Wikipedia policy, not on pedophilia per se, but apparently it's a thoughtcrime for which he should be desysopped. How many meta-levels do you people want to carry this?

LEVEL 0: Somebody who is a pedophile
LEVEL 1: Somebody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 2: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 3: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
...and so on

You can have meta-thoughtcrimes to the infinite degree!

Something rather similar happened during the BADSITES Wars, when the SlimVirgin / ElinorD crowd not only wanted to ban linking to evil harassment sites like Wikipedia Review, they wanted to take action against people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who condoned linking to them, and so on.

I'm only on level 1? I feel dirty. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

The reality is that my viewpoint is functionally the same as the opposing viewpoint: if someone acts like a pedophile, they should be banned. The difference arises only when we're discussing hypothetical cases. I try to set my own feelings to the side and believe in the importance of giving everybody a fair shake, so the idea of banning someone who hasn't been doing anything wrong fills me with doubt.

[SDJ]

So, basically, what people here are saying is not that Everyking is a pedophile, or even that he supports pedophile activity in any way; merely the "meta-issue" that, in terms of Wikipedia internal policy, he opposes banning all pedophiles from editing. This is a position on Wikipedia policy, not on pedophilia per se, but apparently it's a thoughtcrime for which he should be desysopped. How many meta-levels do you people want to carry this?

LEVEL 0: Somebody who is a pedophile
LEVEL 1: Somebody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 2: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 3: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
...and so on

You can have meta-thoughtcrimes to the infinite degree!

Something rather similar happened during the BADSITES Wars, when the SlimVirgin / ElinorD crowd not only wanted to ban linking to evil harassment sites like Wikipedia Review, they wanted to take action against people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who condoned linking to them, and so on.

I'm only on level 1? I feel dirty. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

The reality is that my viewpoint is functionally the same as the opposing viewpoint: if someone acts like a pedophile, they should be banned. The difference arises only when we're discussing hypothetical cases. I try to set my own feelings to the side and believe in the importance of giving everybody a fair shake, so the idea of banning someone who hasn't been doing anything wrong fills me with doubt.

Supporting people who are sexually attracted to an innocent little girl or boy should "fill [you] with doubt", I would think. Banning people who either explicitly state that they feel such sexual attractions, or have edited in ways that make it clear that they do, should be standard operating procedure. Desysopping enabler admins should also be SOP.

[everyking]

Supporting people who are sexually attracted to an innocent little girl or boy should "fill [you] with doubt", I would think. Banning people who either explicitly state that they feel such sexual attractions, or have edited in ways that make it clear that they do, should be standard operating procedure. Desysopping enabler admins should also be SOP.

I find it sad that anyone would construe my viewpoint as "enabling". Do you believe that the legal system enables pedophiles, too? And anyway, what is it an "enabler admin" does, in your opinion? I think if such a matter did arise, it would need to be handled by the ArbCom and not individual admins like me. Banning someone on grounds of pedophilia would be serious business, especially if the account could be identifiably linked to an individual.

[Malleus]

Supporting people who are sexually attracted to an innocent little girl or boy should "fill [you] with doubt", I would think. Banning people who either explicitly state that they feel such sexual attractions, or have edited in ways that make it clear that they do, should be standard operating procedure. Desysopping enabler admins should also be SOP.

I find it sad that anyone would construe my viewpoint as "enabling". Do you believe that the legal system enables pedophiles, too? And anyway, what is it an "enabler admin" does, in your opinion? I think if such a matter did arise, it would need to be handled by the ArbCom and not individual admins like me. Banning someone on grounds of pedophilia would be serious business, especially if the account could be identifiably linked to an individual.

Seems to me that "pedophilia" has just become a witch hunt, and those witch hunters ought to be looking into their own motivations.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Seems to me that "pedophilia" has just become a witch hunt, and those witch hunters ought to be looking into their own motivations.

Pedophiliac witch hunt? You can burn the pederasts as well, as far as I am concerned. "Motivations" don't finger up children, pedophiles do. Let's leave the navel gazing for after the time a child protection policy is enacted on the Pornopedia.

• Just out of interest, how many of you have suffered the attentions of a pedophile or, perhaps, have been or had close friends who were sexually abused as children?
• Would you say such experiences were good or bad motivations for making such judgements?

Standing right back, what is this all really about?

It is a question of the ongoing memetic engineering of our societies' collective consciousness by self-interest groups, some of whom have anti-social tendencies, i.e. tendencies damaging to individuals and the whole.

Pedophiles, and more notably and openly on the Wikipedia so called pederasts, are seeking to force their meme upon society altering it, and the Wikipedia has become a conduit for it whereas the other media would obstruct and criticize it. Their meme being that is it normal or acceptable to express adult sexual desires upon children, or encourage children to service them.

The Wikipedia is conduit directly into a lot of young and impressionable minds. Just a couple of days ago, I pointed out a selection of what would have been in its day hard core pedophiliac pornography being used illustrating articles ... adults engaged in direct sexual stimulation of the clearly depicted genitals of children.

The Wikipedia falls far short on child protection and should send out clear messages to child sex fanatics time and time again until they get the message ... do not fuck here.

Interestingly, unlike the male homosexual movement, the lesbian movement has been vocal about, 'It's not right to have sex with kids.'" A pederasts is a pedophile and about 98% male. It is not just sexual, it is about abusive power. No wonder they gravitate to the Wikipedia.

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

A question, not a statement ... is this another convicted pedophile on the Wikipedia editing their own topic page and pushing their published pedophile manifesto?

Who knows given the mask of anonymity and protection offered by the Wikipedia. He does seem to have intimate knowledge of the issues.

... cited in dozens of academic works over the years, often favourably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Proud_Weed

I hope this is an education to you Everyking and others.

The subject is Tom O'Carroll whose notoriety peaked before most Wikipedian child admins were born for his work with the Paedophile Information Exchange, a "consensus building exercise" amongst liberals and libertarians that individuals involved in this area ought to become aware of, portraying pedophilia as radical assault on traditional patriarchy.

Latterly, engage with "International Paedophile Child Emancipation" forum (IPCE) which claimed to promote 'scholarly discussion' with the aim of changing legislation to decriminalise aspects of child abuse.

In 1975, the UK's National Council of Civil Liberties NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate, both offshoots or parasites for some of the Gay Liberation movement.

In 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O'Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference which promptly voted to 'deplore' the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.

In 1981, O'Carroll was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for conspiracy to corrupt public morals promoting his pedophile manifesto.

In 2002, he was jailed for nine months and then freed on appeal for smuggling indecent pictures of naked children from Qatar which he claimed were "artistic street photography" whilst admitted he found them erotic and his sexual preference was for pre-pubescent children.

In 2006, aged 61, he was behind bars for 2½ years again after admitting three counts of distributing indecent photographs of children. His accomplice, a millionaire former priest Michael Studdert held more than 50,000 sexual images of children in a secret vault at his mansion.

The collection had taken half a century to amass. Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.

O'Carroll's position on issues such as 'Children in Erotica and Pornography' was,

"Like so many other sexual 'problems', this one boils down to the necessity of getting rid of guilt."

Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position is on individuals such as these, how it is protecting any children involved in the project and what greater responsibility it has to society?

[dtobias]

Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position is on individuals such as these,

It ought to be the same as Wikipedia's position on any other individual, living or dead: that, if the person is sufficiently notable, they should have an article on him/her written from a neutral point of view reflecting the views of reliable sources.

Certainly, if Wikipedia happens to take a hostile point of view toward a BLP subject, this provokes much ire on the part of WR regulars about how they're engaging in "defamation"; does this not apply to cases where the subject is, or is believed to be, a pedophile?

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position is on individuals such as these …

It ought to be the same as Wikipedia's position on any other individual, living or dead: that, if the person is sufficiently notable, they should have an article on him/her written from a neutral point of view reflecting the views of reliable sources.

Certainly, if Wikipedia happens to take a hostile point of view toward a BLP subject, this provokes much ire on the part of WR regulars about how they're engaging in "defamation"; does this not apply to cases where the subject is, or is believed to be, a pedophile?

What the hell are you talking about?

Wikipediots have no business keeping public files on anyone.

Therefore, Wikipediots have no business keeping public files on pedophiles.

That is not their job. That is the job of proper authorities and responsible parties.

Wikipediots have no authority and take no responsibility for anything.

But that is utterly beside the question here.

The question is whether the management of a participatory website with no respect for child protection should be allowing users to promulgate pedophile POVs on it.

Jon Awbrey

[Somey]

Certainly, if Wikipedia happens to take a hostile point of view toward a BLP subject, this provokes much ire on the part of WR regulars about how they're engaging in "defamation"; does this not apply to cases where the subject is, or is believed to be, a pedophile?

You're oversimplifying. "Hostile" is a relative term - in the case of a well-known/infamous pedophile, such as the person Mr. Cock-up mentioned (though I'm just taking his word for it on the "well-known" part), you only need report the facts, and most people will take that as hostility. Some people (i.e., other pedophiles) might not. Remember, the truth is an iron-clad defense against libel, but even a notorious criminal should not be openly and/or blatantly lied about in a publication that displays information as objective, neutral, and/or the result of global collaboration. That includes what might seem to be "childish" vandalism, and might also include things like undue emphasis and reference bias.

I'll admit, people like the aforementioned are problematic in terms of BLP reform, in that you wouldn't want to be seen as complicit with their criminal activity by allowing them to opt out. You could make exceptions for people who have been convicted of felonies (and preferably are still serving sentences), but I'll further admit that you then get into various slippery slopes due to the fact that some crimes are much worse than others. It may be unfortunate, but I'm afraid the most practical solution there is to make opt-out eligibility wider (i.e, more inclusive), as opposed to making the list of exceptions and exemptions longer and more complicated.