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.

[One]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

[MZMcBride]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

I always thought it largely surrounded an "ick" factor. Saying that a free content online encyclopedia is a platform for grooming seems a bit... odd.

[One]

This has been explained many times, and Everyking doesn't ever seem to grasp it.

Pedophiles are different because the site is a potentially a platform for grooming child victims.

I always thought it largely surrounded an "ick" factor. Saying that a free content online encyclopedia is a platform for grooming seems a bit... odd.

Almost as odd as describing Wikipedia as a "free content online encyclopedia." Certainly, that's the product, but the users of Wikipedia are on a sort of social networking site.

If it were just the ick factor--if everyone on the site had to verify that they were of the age of majority--I would not think they needed to be banned. Heck, labeling them makes it easier to monitor the POV of their contributions.

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

[everyking]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[gomi]

Hmm. And what is the most straightforward way of addressing that situation? Make users assert they are "over the age of majority". There, that was easy!

No, wait. There is no one in a position of leadership on Wikipedia with the balls to even suggest it enforce COPPA, much less ensure nominally adult editors.

"Dysfunctional parade of idiots" you say? I couldn't agree more. I don't know what's worse: Everyking's moronic reality distortion field, or One/Cool Hand Luke's (and the rest of ArbCom's) unwillingness to do anything to puncture it. It's the impotent leading the limp-dicked, to coin a phrase.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Well here's an image for the article fellatio, even do not know if wikipedia would censor it. Now they say it's incest and pedophilia, but when I was a kid was called "playing doctor". The text reads:

"What if I get mummy?"
"I'd say it's very rude to talk with your mouth full."

- Bonnot Talk 07:43 16 jul 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes pedo-apologists ... "the Wikipedia is not censored" and if I have a problem with any of this stuff it is MY problem and if I feel strongly enough about, gosh, I can waste my life on RfCs about it and ... "let the community decide" ... "community" meaning which ever 4 pedophilia and pederast apologists turn up at that time.

One man's pedophile pornography ... is another man's high art, even if it entails "daddy" sucking and blowing with his daughter.

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct ... The only solution is to just watch them.

So, let us have everyone using their real names and verified accounts (e.g. a micropayment to credit/debit cards like Paypal);

a) to discourage pedophiles or pederasts from signing up
b) to allow those that want to keep an eye on them watch them.

The problem is at present, all the pedos are skirting around the kindergarten wearing cloaks and masks.

If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

There is actually a sort of logic to this ... BIG IF it were to lead to individuals being tracked, traced and policed ... but who does that, who is going to do that, why should it fall onto volunteers' shoulders and what happens in the meantime?

a) Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to put to good use some of its multi-millions and handle this 'duty of care' issue in a professional manner, i.e. accepting the current liabilities?
b) Is it going to adequately warn parents and teachers etc, Or ...

c)Is it going to continue to favor protecting the anonymity of the pedophiles, pederasts and bestiality freaks? No answer needed. This is not addressed at you personally. We all know they chose option c).

There is no one in a position of leadership on Wikipedia with the balls to even suggest it enforce COPPA, much less ensure nominally adult editors.

Meanwhile ... back on the Wikipedia Boy page ...

Revision as of 07:44, 15 February 2010 174.21.116.120 (T-C-L-K-R-D) gives us,

"Boys, unlike girls, are able to urinate standing up, and can pee outside on the earth": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drinking...s_WGAREG001.jpg

Why do you not want to be a girl? Because I do not want to pee with nothing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...s_vifs_-_04.jpg

... with a nice display of not just boy "cocky" but upskirt naked prepubescent girl vagina as well. Albeit done tastefully with classical lithographs. The later image which turns up again on Urination along with not one but two pissing goats (thank you David "Shakbone" Miller and the Government of Israel) and not one erotic galleries but two erotic galleries which excel themselves with not child on child sexual images but what I guess would constitute lesbian pedophile rape these days.


Whereas, I am sure 'lesbian pederasts' might argue that the lesbian pedophile rape was an example of loving consensual sexplay between an adult and a child, the statistical existence of said pedophiles is extremely low in comparison to male pedophiles. So, let us presume the more obvious ... that such images were used for male sexual arousal and were no less pedophiliac pornography than the dubious pedophiliac Lolicon Manga we have discussed elsewhere.

It appears on various pages; child sexuality, Masturbation, Mutual Masterbation, Pedophilia, Lesbianism, Lesbian pornography, Lesbianism in erotica, and Sexual practices ... the latter alongside some nice anal penetration and a pair of fucking giraffes. One could not make this stuff up if one tried ... and one would not believed if one did. So, let's go further ... how about some nice pedophiliac mutual oral sex between male teacher and girl student, asking about mommy, dolly strewn at her feet.

Fine "upstanding Wikipedians in good stead", as Jimmy Wales or New York Brad would call it LostCause1979 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Symane (T-C-L-K-R-D) Chuck es dios (T-C-L-K-R-D) getting a special mention. Chuck es dios being a bit of a specialist in fisting and related topics, Bonnot have expertise in Striptease, Auto-fellatio, underage lesbian porn, illustrated pedophiliac masturbation fantasies on the Pedophile topic page (I suppose it helps a child looking it know what teacher is actually doing when she sits on his knee ... it has been there for more than a year), some child sex play, some child rape or a little death post-child rape most of which is doing nothing but appear on users' homepages.

If that does not do it for you ... you can waste your time again tidying up after these enlightened editors ...

81.145.249.136 - Did you know that men who likes MEN is homersexual (gay). Dont do that when you are older little children. (... and what did Homer Simpson ever do to you, kid?)
206.131.48.254 - Lets make this short a boy is a girl and a girl is a boy but Nick Benidict Bauer doesnt qualify for either a boy or a girl. People say every thing has a gender but they all lied so suck on that.
81.145.249.136 - Removed all nacked boys from gallery, get your pedo kinks somewhere else!
81.159.212.89 - Boys are really smelly, They smellof there poo when theyve com off the toilet. Boys are so ugly'
64.175.35.150 - 'boy fuck girl. boy have sex with girl.'
216.36.160.140 - ''''HOW TO USE RAPE IN A SENTENCE''' <nowiki>YOUR MOTHER RAPED LITTLE BOYZ!</nowiki> <ref>HISTORY CLASS</ref> == OOTHER PLACES TO VISIT == 1. YOUR MOMS BASEMEN...')
82.12.126.118 - Dopeboy, is a fat Mexican faggot. He has no life and also is really sad, because he jacks of to any picture you give him. He's a big fat baby who cries when …') (undo)
67.184.80.60 - they are big fat slimy pigs with no brains

[Peter Damian]

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

That's an interesting and paradoxical statement.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Krimpet]

Almost as odd as describing Wikipedia as a "free content online encyclopedia." Certainly, that's the product, but the users of Wikipedia are on a sort of social networking site.

It's particularly a social networking site for some of the kids, with their often naïvely detailed information about themselves on their userpages, "friends" lists, "guestbooks," "hidden pages," and at least in a couple instances, "Mary Sue" fiction about themselves and their friends' adventures on Wikipedia, styled like a Nickelodeon cartoon. Worse, most of these social-networking uses have been approved by The Community™ at some point, even though supposedly "Wikipedia is not MySpace."

It's pretty frightening, and a potential predators' paradise.

This post has been edited by Krimpet:

[GlassBeadGame]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

That is dishonest, two cute by half reasoning. The solution is get rid of them. You can't watch their email communication which is of course the most dangerous. Tyciol made a point of putting every piece of private contact information, email, chat, pm etc everywhere he could.

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

[Eva Destruction]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice? (Admittedly, I don't think this is a resignation issue; while he may have very dubious opinions on pedophilia, I've not seen any sign of it on Wikipedia. If he were to unblock a blocked pedo on the grounds that it breaches their basic human right to edit Wikipedia (which seems to be the tenor of his argument here), or said that he would do so if the matter arose, that would be a different issue.)

[GlassBeadGame]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice?

Mr. Democracy won't let "the people" vote on his continuation?

[SB_Johnny]

But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they should be banned.

That's an interesting and paradoxical statement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ActionShot2.jpg

huh, how do you control image size, praytell?

[Jon Awbrey]

If it were simply a question of a single person with the worldly experience and common sense of a wax paper kazoo, then I'd be content to leave EK on my ignore list and talk about something remotely intelligent.

But the fact is that Wikiputia absolutely depends on having hordes of these NPOVerished mentalities, who feel duty bound by their Dogshit Dogma to be "neutral", "objective", and "passive" about things that make the blood of normal human beings boil over.

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[NotARepublican55]

Seriously, how old is Everyking?

If it were simply a question of a single person with the worldly experience and common sense of a wax paper kazoo, then I'd be content to leave EK on my ignore list and talk about something remotely intelligent.

But the fact is that Wikiputia absolutely depends on having hordes of these NPOVerished mentalities, who feel duty bound by their Dogshit Dogma to be "neutral", "objective", and "passive" about things that make the blood of normal human beings boil over.

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Please do.

[A Horse With No Name]

Seriously, how old is Everyking?

He's probably playing jacks with NW. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Zoloft]

Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everyking get banned.
I'd expect that sort of response from Wikipedia, not here.
I interrupted a newbie mugging this morning over there. Yecch.

[Jon Awbrey]

Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everyking get banned.
I'd expect that sort of response from Wikipedia, not here.
I interrupted a newbie mugging this morning over there. Yecch.

I've always been against banning as a form of routine moderation — but EK is such a True Believer's True Believer in Wikipediot Ways that I should think he would welcome us importing more of their routines, especially in application to such diehard e-pologists of Wikipediocracy.

Wikipoetic Justice and All That …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

He's probably playing jacks with NW.

I much prefer four square to jacks, thank you very much (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[everyking]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice?

Mr. Democracy won't let "the people" vote on his continuation?

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

[GlassBeadGame]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice?

Mr. Democracy won't let "the people" vote on his continuation?

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

So you only agree in a manner designed not to be met? Your position on pedophile editors makes you fundamentally unsuitable to be an admin or have any position of authority. So, obviously the idea that you are beyond reproach is a vain conceit. This is my view as an outsider to the project, not as a Wikipedian. You would be voted out on your ass by any reasonable electorate.

[everyking]

If it were simply a question of a single person with the worldly experience and common sense of a wax paper kazoo, then I'd be content to leave EK on my ignore list and talk about something remotely intelligent.

But the fact is that Wikiputia absolutely depends on having hordes of these NPOVerished mentalities, who feel duty bound by their Dogshit Dogma to be "neutral", "objective", and "passive" about things that make the blood of normal human beings boil over.

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I want to congratulate you on the construction of some coherent sentences, Jon. For once, it doesn't feel like trying to read some bad imitation of Finnegans Wake. In recognition of your achievement, I will agree to accept, without complaint, a lifetime ban from your "meta-discussion" subforum.

[EricBarbour]

I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste of our days that we spend reading and responding to his never-ending crap.

Seem to recall that Wikipedia tried to kick him out--he's damn difficult to rid oneself of.....

I want to congratulate you on the construction of some coherent sentences, Jon. For once, it doesn't feel like trying to read some bad imitation of Finnegans Wake. In recognition of your achievement, I will agree to accept, without complaint, a lifetime ban from your "meta-discussion" subforum.

I do think you're a lot crazier and more dangerous than he is.

I know! Go to Wikipedia and bitch about Jon Awbrey! They'll like you even more for it!
Maybe it'll help you, the next time you try another doomed RFA.......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[CharlotteWebb]

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

I take it you would, then, support establishing a burden of evidence rather than a majority vote—as head-count ≠ body-count necessarily—for any proposed "community de-sysop" process?

Sounds like a good idea.

[everyking]

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

I take it you would, then, support establishing a burden of evidence rather than a majority vote—as head-count ≠ body-count necessarily—for any proposed "community de-sysop" process?

Sounds like a good idea.

As part of an actual desysopping vote, no. But it's reasonable to expect that the people initially demanding the recall of a certain admin be able to point to some admin action they find objectionable--that would assist others in making up their minds about the merits of the recall.

[Somey]

I know he said he'd prefer to have AfD's be decided strictly by vote-count, but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with this idea that admin recalls should at least require a rationale of some sort. Besides, an AfD is a whole different kettle of fish, right?

It's an interesting problem, but if you ask me they should ban the actual pedophilia advocates first. If they can manage that, hopefully the issue will go away and they won't have to do anything about the "oh, but they're people too and they have feelings and should have the same right to edit as everyone else" folks.

Still, why is Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) still an administrator? They dealt with Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) finally, so I don't see why they're fooling around with this.

[EricBarbour]

Still, why is Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) still an administrator? They dealt with Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) finally, so I don't see why they're fooling around with this.

Judging from AN/I, they all think Herostratus was "just joking around". Ho ho ho.

Hersfold asked him to contact Arbcom. As I said, this is probably the last we will ever hear of this. All the AN/I whores will go back to their pointless squabbling, and Herostratus will go back to editing pedo articles. (And CHL will go back to being clueless, and EK will go back to being a pain in the scrotum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Hipocrite]

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?

[GlassBeadGame]

Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: if you request, on my talk page--and on your actual WP account--that I set up recall conditions, I will be happy to do so. The only reason I haven't done so is that I find it inconceivable that anyone would have a legitimate complaint about my actions--the only things I've done as an admin are delete CSDs and move pages over redirects. Bear in mind that if you want to request recall, you will have to cite actual admin actions; it won't do to just carp about some viewpoint I hold.

How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?

You don't count because you'll actually do it and Everking is being dishonest. Everyking knows I won't do anything on WP linked to my WR account. Actually I haven't done anything at all on WP in well over a year.

[The Wales Hunter]

In the wacky world of Wikipedia, suggesting editors who hold pro-paedophile viewpoints should not be allowed the mop, let alone banned, leads to accusations of bigotry!

[Somey]

Judging from AN/I, they all think Herostratus was "just joking around". Ho ho ho.

I'm probably just stating the obvious here, but the thing about jokes of that nature is that some people will exaggerate their actual situation using the time-honored reductio ad absurdem technique, in order to deflect suspicion while still retaining the sense that they're actually being honest with other people. He seems to have taken this considerably further with the current version of his user page... I don't want to discourage WP'ers from trying to display a sense of humor, but the fact remains that he curtailed his WP activity significantly from June 2007, going from roughly a hundred edits per month to fewer than ten, and in some months only one or two. There are funnier ways to explain that which don't involve mention of involuntary computer-use restrictions, particularly when you consider that this is the "founder" of the (now-defunct?) "Pedophilia Article Watch."

This comment from 2006 is a good example of what was his general approach to the issue of "welcoming" pedophiles on Wikipedia - he was, and probably still is, all for it. Seriously, this is clearly not someone WP should want as an admin - I'm not saying they should ban him (though many would, including me), but admin rights? Come on, WP, figure this out for once. I mean, Everyking's position on this is bad enough, but Herostratus' is far more, uh, you know.

[everyking]

How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?

Ah yes, I remember you, Admiral Ackbar. Here's what you said when you opposed my RfA: "Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and evidence a lack of reliability."

In other words, acting on your request would do me no good at all--it would actually evidence a lack of reliability. In that sense, the request seems a bit "hipocritical"--you might even say it's a trap I won't fall into. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by everyking:

[GlassBeadGame]

How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?

Ah yes, I remember you, Admiral Ackbar. Here's what you said when you opposed my RfA: "Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and evidence a lack of reliability."

In other words, acting on your request would do me no good at all--it would actually evidence a lack of reliability. In that sense, the request seems a bit "hipocritcal"--you might even say it's a trap I won't fall into. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Hang on to those bits, Everyking, no matter how much you need to abandon everything you said you stood for. Ashley is depending on you.

[everyking]

Hang on to those bits, Everyking, no matter how much you need to abandon everything you said you stood for. Ashley is depending on you.

Absolutely. And if I lost the almighty authority I wield as an administrator, what would she see in me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Hang on to those bits, Everyking, no matter how much you need to abandon everything you said you stood for. Ashley is depending on you.

Absolutely. And if I lost the almighty authority I wield as an administrator, what would she see in me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

A recovering wikiholic.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[gomi]

Judging from AN/I, they all think Herostratus was "just joking around". Ho ho ho.

This isn't pointed at you, Eric, but I want to remind everyone that this thread is not about Herostratus, what he may or may not be, or whether he's an admin -- there is another thread on that topic. It is about Everyking stating the (hypothetical) that convicted criminal pedophiles should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. I don't beat the "pedo" drum around here as loudly as some*, but that breathtaking failure of moral leadership needed to be highlighted and discussed, both in terms of EK and the wider Wikipedia culture.

CHL will go back to being clueless ...

If CHL was ever "away" from being clueless, "going back" will be a short trip.

*Though I am every bit as concerned for the welfare of children.

[Backslashforwardslash]

Paedophiles aren't bad editors. In theory they would have no problem writing articles on Ancient Rome, or detailed articles on say, literature.

You'd be mad to let them do so with a bunch of fourteen year olds, but hey, in theory it works!

(To say that we shouldn't be hunting down paedophile editors or other undesirables is as absurd as saying we should only do background checks once they've worn a t-shirt with "PAEDO" written on it.)

In reply to everyking's original comment; it's not about punishment for misdeeds, it's about prevention of further misdeeds.

[Zoloft]

I would not sanction an editor for Everyking's opinion.

I would sanction an editor for Herostratus's antics.

/geisel

I would not read him in a car.

I would not read him in a bar.

I'd like to smack him with a fish.

To ban him is my fondest wish.

Sam-I-am.

[Milton Roe]

Still, why is Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) still an administrator? They dealt with Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) finally, so I don't see why they're fooling around with this.

Judging from AN/I, they all think Herostratus was "just joking around". Ho ho ho.

Same when his namesake burned that temple; what a fun guy. Performance art though the ages...
J.W.Booth

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Are there not reasons why pedophiles are prohibited from teaching in schools, running boy scout troops and the likes?

Has real life society learned 'nothing for no reason'?

The only reason to allow a pedophile or pederast to continue editing the Wikipedia is to compile sufficient evidence against them to protect children or prosecute them.

The Mediawiki Foundation, whilst have no such sophisticated mechanism, indeed probably seeing them as personal infringements, protects pedophiles and pederasts rights to push their POV.

There are good reasons why real life society has evolved to do so.

Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary.

[One]

CHL will go back to being clueless ...

If CHL was ever "away" from being clueless, "going back" will be a short trip.

Yeah, I think I would remember something like that. Eric appears to be misinformed.

[everyking]

Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary.

Whereas Wikipedia Review is merely counter-revolutionary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

What we're really asking here is: if we know someone identifiably falls into a certain category, even when they are not violating any laws by editing (nor any internal regulations), should we bar that person from participation? Pedophilia is something that stirs particular outrage in people, but there are other classes of people we could consider in the same light.

My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity. Generally there is no problem, and they can contribute to society in various ways, although people are going to view them warily. However, if they are hanging around outside the local elementary school, people should be very worried and should talk to the police--hopefully they would take action or at least pay close attention to the person. And of course there are analogous things one could be doing on Wikipedia that would warrant administrative action, or at least close attention. Personally, I doubt very much that the risk from pedophiles is any higher if one adopts an "identify and monitor" approach rather than a "ban immediately" approach--keeping in mind that anyone can start a new account, I think the important part is identification, although I'm sure that's less intuitively satisifying. Another thing to consider is that you would rarely have definitive evidence: I'd imagine you'd expect to see editing pushing a POV sympathetic to pedophilia, but you wouldn't expect to have knowledge of actual criminal convictions or an open declaration of sexuality.

My view may, of course, be poorly informed and poorly considered. I'm interested to know if this is a purely theoretical issue, or if there are known cases of this? I'm also curious as to how other websites have handled this issue.

[NotARepublican55]

My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55:

[everyking]

My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream? Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Killiondude]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ActionShot2.jpg

huh, how do you control image size, praytell?

If you were genuinely asking, take a look here. Adjust the 500px in the URL as necessary.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[EricBarbour]

How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?

Ah yes, I remember you, Admiral Ackbar. Here's what you said when you opposed my RfA: "Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and evidence a lack of reliability."

Mock him if you wish. He's probably got a job waiting for him in Mississippi. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[taiwopanfob]

My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity. Generally there is no problem, and they can contribute to society in various ways, although people are going to view them warily. However, if they are hanging around outside the local elementary school, people should be very worried and should talk to the police--hopefully they would take action or at least pay close attention to the person. And of course there are analogous things one could be doing on Wikipedia that would warrant administrative action, or at least close attention. Personally, I doubt very much that the risk from pedophiles is any higher if one adopts an "identify and monitor" approach rather than a "ban immediately" approach--keeping in mind that anyone can start a new account, I think the important part is identification, although I'm sure that's less intuitively satisifying.

Man, will you ever make any sense at all? Ever?

Pedophiles are deeply aware of their station as one of the few -- the chosen! -- True Scumbags of Society. It's an interesting question where society as whole would rank them. Above or below a tax collector? A politician?

So it is to be expected that as soon as you identify someone as a pedophile, you have, from their perspective, banned them. The gigs up! They will seek a new account.

So you might as well ban them, and ban them as quickly you identify them.

Another thing to consider is that you would rarely have definitive evidence: I'd imagine you'd expect to see editing pushing a POV sympathetic to pedophilia, but you wouldn't expect to have knowledge of actual criminal convictions or an open declaration of sexuality.

Except ... it appears that with relatively little effort an entire cadre of these people have been reliably identified.

Regardless, however, of how easy or hard the job is, dirty or clean, it is a job that must be done. If you allow someone to walk around a crowded room with a hunting knife in their hands -- on the theory it is better to "monitor them" than just arrest the idiot, and remove him from polite society -- you are empowering the guy with your lazy-ass negligence.

And that's what this all boils down to, isn't it, Everyking?

You are a lazy fuck.

You can't do the job of a real editor, so you "convert" your demonstrable inability a virtue, and even insult those who can do the job, and aren't afraid of doing it. "Vile deletionists", you call them.

Now it is clear you can't even do the job of sweeping out the trash. But hey, let's not be negative there ... let's convert your inherently irresponsible position into one of pure Good via the time-honored tactic of FUD production.

[A Horse With No Name]

Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary.

Whereas Wikipedia Review is merely counter-revolutionary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.

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

[CharlotteWebb]

Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.

Well, the resemblance is uncanny.

[GlassBeadGame]

Ashley Simpson doesn't love pedophile enablers.

[EricBarbour]

Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.

Well, the resemblance is uncanny.

And right now, Everyking looks a bit like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Somey]

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream? Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

It's probably more like hiring summer-camp counselors without doing any background checks. Though to be honest, there really isn't a proper real-world analogy for it... the internet often leads people to make poor analogies simply because there aren't any good ones that fit.

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society (i.e., not just pedophilia) have a tendency to put enormous amounts of mental energy towards doing it in such a way as to minimize risk to themselves, and achieve their objective(s) as efficiently and quietly as possible (though "quietly" assumes the activity doesn't necessarily involve attention-getting in some way). Law enforcement types have learned not to underestimate them, but Wikipedians, maybe not so much.

One other thing that I hesitate to point out, and which rarely gets mentioned (because it's so disturbing to parents), is that pedophiles in particular have a specific advantage over other sociopaths - namely, the fact that some children actually want to have sex with adults and not tell anybody about it. That's probably the main reason why you should ban them rather than "monitor" them - if they're allowed to continue "as long as they behave themselves," they'll find ways to advertise their interests, and in many cases the victims will come to them.

Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typos and format reference citations and revert vandalism with the best of them, and even be very polite and "civil" about it. But if you think someone with real sociopathic/pervert tendencies is going to limit himself to that just because you ask him politely, or because you've threatened to "block" him if he doesn't, I'm afraid you're wrong. He'll probably find a way around almost anything you throw at him, because (no offense) he's just as smart as you - but unlike you, he's spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to do it, and it may be practically all he thinks about.

[Eva Destruction]

Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typos and format reference citations and revert vandalism with the best of them, and even be very polite and "civil" about it. But if you think someone with real sociopathic/pervert tendencies is going to limit himself to that just because you ask him politely, or because you've threatened to "block" him if he doesn't, I'm afraid you're wrong. He'll probably find a way around almost anything you throw at him, because (no offense) he's just as smart as you - but unlike you, he's spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to do it, and it may be practically all he thinks about.

For a case in point, look at the hassle both WP and WR (and assorted other projects) have in fending off Poetsocks. It's not that he's some kind of Lex Luthor type; it's that he spends all his time thinking of ways to game the system, and those who have to stop him have real lives and can't devote all their time to it.

(To pre-empt the inevitable anguished emails; no, I'm not saying you're a pedophile, I'm saying that you and they share a monomaniacal obsession with gaming Wikipedia for reasons no sane person would understand.)

[Peter Damian]

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society

Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Zoloft]

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society

Wikipedia

A compulsion you seem to share. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[NotARepublican55]

My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream?

Yes it is, seeing as Wikipedia allows minors such as yourself to edit. How do you know a pedophile isn't mass-emailing underage users right now pretending to be a legitimate editor so he can gain their trust?

Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You first.

[Malleus]

Yes it is, seeing as Wikipedia allows minors such as yourself to edit. How do you know a pedophile isn't mass-emailing underage users right now pretending to be a legitimate editor so he can gain their trust?

Why do you use the word "he"? There's a very recent case here in the UK of a married woman convicted of having sex with a 12-year-old boy, Don't you think that emails sent out from wikipedia are monitored, just as they are from this forum? How would you "pretend to be a legitimate editor" if you weren't actually a "legitimate editor", whatever you think "legitimate" means?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[NotARepublican55]

Don't you think that emails sent out from wikipedia are monitored, just as they are from this forum? How would you "pretend to be a legitimate editor" if you weren't actually a "legitimate editor", whatever you think "legitimate" means?

Hypothetical scenario:

A pedophile is checking out an underage editor's profile and notices that he's a fan of World of Warcraft. He starts chatting with the kid while pretending that he's a kid his age who's also a big World of Warcraft fan and invites the kid to play with him online... take it from there.

[everyking]

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream? Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

It's probably more like hiring summer-camp counselors without doing any background checks. Though to be honest, there really isn't a proper real-world analogy for it... the internet often leads people to make poor analogies simply because there aren't any good ones that fit.

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society (i.e., not just pedophilia) have a tendency to put enormous amounts of mental energy towards doing it in such a way as to minimize risk to themselves, and achieve their objective(s) as efficiently and quietly as possible (though "quietly" assumes the activity doesn't necessarily involve attention-getting in some way). Law enforcement types have learned not to underestimate them, but Wikipedians, maybe not so much.

One other thing that I hesitate to point out, and which rarely gets mentioned (because it's so disturbing to parents), is that pedophiles in particular have a specific advantage over other sociopaths - namely, the fact that some children actually want to have sex with adults and not tell anybody about it. That's probably the main reason why you should ban them rather than "monitor" them - if they're allowed to continue "as long as they behave themselves," they'll find ways to advertise their interests, and in many cases the victims will come to them.

Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typos and format reference citations and revert vandalism with the best of them, and even be very polite and "civil" about it. But if you think someone with real sociopathic/pervert tendencies is going to limit himself to that just because you ask him politely, or because you've threatened to "block" him if he doesn't, I'm afraid you're wrong. He'll probably find a way around almost anything you throw at him, because (no offense) he's just as smart as you - but unlike you, he's spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to do it, and it may be practically all he thinks about.

Well, maybe you're right. However, my philosophy more closely mirrors how people deal with pedophiles in real life, and I suspect (although, as I already noted, I don't know) it's the de facto standard operating procedure on the internet as well (hopefully with the obvious exception of kid-oriented sites, which I'd imagine are much more vigilant). I suppose a lot of what we're seeing in this thread is a reflection of the idea that Wikipedia is some kind of playground, and naturally if that's how you see it then you'd want the approach to be more vigilant, reflecting what other kid-oriented sites do. It's not how I see Wikipedia--I see it as an essentially adult enterprise where children are allowed to participate, like many social networking sites. From my perspective, it seems doubtful that pedophiles would come to Wikipedia to groom children--perhaps they'd try to skew the pedophilia articles, but it seems like an odd target otherwise.

Haven't there been any cases where the ArbCom has dealt with something like this? If not, well, that suggests it isn't a realistic problem, I think. If so, then it would be very informative to hear what kind of approach has been taken.

[A Horse With No Name]

Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.

Well, the resemblance is uncanny.

Personally, I imagine Charlotte looks something like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[SDJ]

In real life, people beat the shit out of pedophiles. In real life, they're thrown in jail, and removed from society. How the hell did I ever convince myself that giving you extra tools was a good idea?

[everyking]

In real life, people beat the shit out of pedophiles. In real life, they're thrown in jail, and removed from society. How the hell did I ever convince myself that giving you extra tools was a good idea?

The whole discussion is premised on the question of whether people should be excluded even when they aren't actually violating any laws or rules. If they are, then of course it's a no-brainer.

[A Horse With No Name]

My view may, of course, be poorly informed and poorly considered.

It is - and you have disappointed a great many people with your poorly conceived opinions.

I'm also curious as to how other websites have handled this issue.

Do other web sites give minors administrative duties that gives them rank over adults? Do other web sites allow them to pass judgment on the editorial value of pornographic images?

Other web sites may be worse -- consider that chicken hawk haven called VirtualTeen.org, where Juliancolton used to hang out and give sex advice until he got Hiveminded.

Nonetheless, Wikipedia presents itself as an academic reference site. These kind of shenanigans are completely antithetical to that mission.

[Web Fred]

Do other web sites allow them to pass judgment on the editorial value of pornographic images?

As opposed to simply jerking off over them and wandering away unharmed?

[SDJ]

In real life, people beat the shit out of pedophiles. In real life, they're thrown in jail, and removed from society. How the hell did I ever convince myself that giving you extra tools was a good idea?

The whole discussion is premised on the question of whether people should be excluded even when they aren't actually violating any laws or rules. If they are, then of course it's a no-brainer.

The act of existing as an unapologetic pedophile is a violation of basic moral laws. While we can't imprison them, we certainly should ban them indefinitely, and desysop and/or ban any admins and/or regular editors who serve as their enablers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Grow up and stop making everything fit into your few hack ideas and narrow world view. If an admin lacks the judgment to be willing to take measures against pedophile editors it is a legitimate issue concerning their fitness to hold the position of trust. This is not a "thought crime." You are nothing but a one trick pony.

[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.

[SDJ]

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.

There's no "construing" necessary. You are, in fact, enabling them with your dumbass comments about how they can be "productive editors." That's utter bullshit, and it is enabling them.

[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.

[gomi]

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.

The reality is that you are a disingenuous, prevaricating, lying sack of lying shit. When you first commented on this, it wasn't hypothetical at all. It only became hypothetical when I extracted it from the discussion of bizarro Wiki-admin Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) , about whom you said:

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?

In other words, you assumed a priori to the discussion, that he was a convicted child porn felon, was editing by proxy, and concluded -- with that knowledge -- that he nevertheless shouldn't be barred from doing so because of his crime. Nothing hypothetical about that. It only became hypothetical when he claimed "Joke!", but that wasn't in evidence when you responded.

Every time I think my opinion of you has reached a new low, you break through and sink lower. Astonishing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[SDJ]

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.

Seems to me that having "witch hunts" for pedophiles and their enablers on-Wiki is a noble pursuit.

[EricBarbour]

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.

We're trying to say something more subtle:
Everyking is not merely a Wiki-loving asshole.
He's a meta-asshole. It's quite an achievement.

Wikipedia's "internal policy" is fucked up.
And EK is a damned gullible fool to support it.

(Or perhaps he's doing it knowing full-well how disgusting his position is, it's difficult to tell. Meta-disgusting.)

[everyking]

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.

The reality is that you are a disingenuous, prevaricating, lying sack of lying shit. When you first commented on this, it wasn't hypothetical at all. It only became hypothetical when I extracted it from the discussion of bizarro Wiki-admin Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) , about whom you said:

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?

In other words, you assumed a priori to the discussion, that he was a convicted child porn felon, was editing by proxy, and concluded -- with that knowledge -- that he nevertheless shouldn't be barred from doing so because of his crime. Nothing hypothetical about that. It only became hypothetical when he claimed "Joke!", but that wasn't in evidence when you responded.

Every time I think my opinion of you has reached a new low, you break through and sink lower. Astonishing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

OK, well, the comment was ill-considered. On reflection, it's probably no good to talk about something like this in general terms. When cases arise, they should be carefully considered and responsibly handled by people with access to the specific information.

[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?

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Alfred_E._Neumann.jpg)

[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?