|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field |
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
I felt a sincere need to highlight this post by Everyking (T-C-L-K-R-D)
here on the Review: QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:04pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE 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.QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th February 2010, 7:13am) 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. QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th February 2010, 7:13am) 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). QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 24th February 2010, 7:19am) 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 174.21.116.120Â (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 LostCause1979Â (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
|
|
|
|
Krimpet |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 402
Joined:
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 1,975
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 2:08am) 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 |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th February 2010, 2:13am) 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.
|
|
|
|
NotARepublican55 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
Member No.: 15,925
|
Seriously, how old is Everyking? QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:27am) 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.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE 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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:08pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 7:04am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:49am) 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 |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th February 2010, 9:09pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:08pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 7:04am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:49am) 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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:27pm) 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 |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:27pm) 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..... QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th February 2010, 6:18pm) 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:
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 25th February 2010, 4:12am) QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 25th February 2010, 2:09am) 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 |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
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 |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:01pm) 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:
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 10:37pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 25th February 2010, 4:59pm) QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Thu 25th February 2010, 9:30pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:37pm) 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. QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:37pm) 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 |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 22
Joined:
Member No.: 13,838
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 9:37pm) QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:01pm) 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |