It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[SB_Johnny]

Sorry, not "while you can", but "while your dignity and public reputation isn't horribly blemished". Good faith efforts that are exerted for the benefit of bad systems can be hard to explain down the line.

[A Horse With No Name]

I don't necessarily want "the whole thing coming apart." The success or failure of WMF and its projects is none of my concern. If they are going to continue to operate I do want them to do so in a responsible fashion. Sometimes the most responsible thing that you can do in a situation where others are pressuring you act and you are not properly equipped for the task is to acknowledge your limitations and decline to act, even if it does not appear that anyone else will fill the gap.

But you are dealing with a clique that have been repeatedly told, both here and on the mothership, that they are (1) incompetent and (2) are doing more harm than good. Their reaction to such messages inevitably fall into one of three categories: (1) sticking their fingers in their ears, (2) sputtering in outrage that someone would call them into question, and (3) pretending to listen to the concerns while continuing to go forth as if no one raised a red flag.

As for the "whole thing coming apart" -- where have you been? It came apart years ago -- everyone is just rearranging the wreckage, not rebuilding the mess.

[tarantino]

But you are dealing with a clique that have been repeatedly told, both here and on the mothership, that they are (1) incompetent and (2) are doing more harm than good. Their reaction to such messages inevitably fall into one of three categories: (1) sticking their fingers in their ears, (2) sputtering in outrage that someone would call them into question, and (3) pretending to listen to the concerns while continuing to go forth as if no one raised a red flag.

As for the "whole thing coming apart" -- where have you been? It came apart years ago -- everyone is just rearranging the wreckage, not rebuilding the mess.

Here's a recent example that highlights your response.

DJ Pusspuss (he puts the pagan into propaganda!) hasn't used his Benjiboi account to edit Wikipedia since March 28. but instead is using IPs and one-off accounts to stir things up.

Here is the propogandist trying to influence the "what to do about pedos" discussion .

Editors who are or are alleged to be pedophilistic (whatever the word) should certainly not be banned simply because they have a disease or a criminal past. They should be treated like every other editor and if the editing otherwise violates policy then address that. Focus on the content not the contributor.

One of the incompetents stopped by Benjiboi's IP talk page to kindly suggest that it may be a good idea to use his primary account in this circumstance.

Hi. I've noted that you've been discussing the child protection policy. I can understand why you would wish to post anonymously.. but if you do have a Wikipedia account, could you please contribute to the discussion under that account? I don't think anyone will accuse you of being an advocate or what have you. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DJ Pusspuss responds

actually I have already been threatened so would prefer to remain anonymous. The discussion has been quite healthy with the exception of one editor. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The incompetent wanders off, and leaves it to someone else with more clue to deal with him.

This post has been edited by tarantino: Fri 9th July 2010, 1:55am

[Somey]

The incompetent wanders off, and leaves it to someone else with more clue to deal with him.

Why is everybody being so mean to SirFozzie, just because he wants us to believe that an established (though undocumented) practice is the same as an official policy? I thought he actually made a fairly good point earlier, whereby if they tried to establish such a policy on a wiki page, someone might come along and attempt to change it, say, if they forgot to "protect" the page or whatever. And surely everyone is aware by now that the WMF and the WP community are hopelessly incapable of advanced technologies like the creation of static HTML files - those require all sorts of newfangled gew-gaws like "text editors" and the like.

SirFozzie isn't really the problem here, IMO. The problem is a fundamental disconnect between what the WMF wants in order to keep bringing in cash donations (i.e., a minimal appearance of social responsibility), and what the people who actually write and edit the site want, which of course is to be allowed to do whatever the hell they please with no personal consequences, and not have anyone else tell them what to do or what not to do.

Besides, it can't be easy dealing with pedophilia apologists, enablers, and toleration advocates like Mr. Benjiboi when you yourself are operating under the name of a Sesame Street character.

[EricBarbour]

Mike Godwin's job is to ensure that Jimmy (and, to a degree, the rest of the WMF) don't get into trouble. It's not to ensure that Wikipedia, or in fact any Wikimedia project, has reasonable governance. On top of that, Mike is not a very good lawyer, and so the quality of the "advice" you get from him is probably quite suspect.

Well put, but let me reframe part of that in a more appropriate style:

Mike is not a very good lawyer

And, thank you.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 9th July 2010, 9:30am

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Mike Godwin's job is to ensure that Jimmy (and, to a degree, the rest of the WMF) don't get into trouble. It's not to ensure that Wikipedia, or in fact any Wikimedia project, has reasonable governance.

This is a highly correct appraisal. "Legal Compliance" is just ass covering. Doing the least to avoid being sued.

"Volunteers" indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between WMF and participants ("users") of the projects ... They are only users of an interactive active computer service that permits the participants to provide content for whatever their own purposes might be ... Everything that is said about what is permitted or not ... is nothing more than other user generated content.

This is a key issue, more key that I think folks realize.

Terms like volunteer, member, user etc all, basically, have legal definitions or legal implications with a different legal relationship.

I deliberately lean on the idea of "volunteers". The Wikipedia certainly sells them (actually ... raises funds to pay their workers) as volunteers. Wiki-serfs mostly think they are volunteers. Volunteers have a clear legal relationship and their employing entity has clear legal responsibilities to them.

If they are NOT volunteers ... then what are they WRITTEN down as being ... on paper?

The unique "user" arrangement relied on by WMF seeks to end run all accountability and provides none of the protections nor reasons for neither WMF nor the users to act in a responsible manner.

It is not so much "unique" as "unchallenged.

How would it be possible to legally question or challenged it? Class action for RSI suffering?

[Alison]

Can we change the title of this thread to something more factually accurate?

[Moulton]

Can we change the title of this thread to something more factually accurate?

How about: It's Official: No Official Policy
Subtitle: Just vague "commonly understood" unwritten practice

The point being that no one quite understands or agrees on what is euphemistically referred to as "commonly understood common sense".

[A Horse With No Name]

The incompetent wanders off, and leaves it to someone else with more clue to deal with him.

Fortunately, there is at least one person with a working brain on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/71.139.2.170

[SirFozzie]

SirFozzie isn't really the problem here, IMO. The problem is a fundamental disconnect between what the WMF wants in order to keep bringing in cash donations (i.e., a minimal appearance of social responsibility), and what the people who actually write and edit the site want, which of course is to be allowed to do whatever the hell they please with no personal consequences, and not have anyone else tell them what to do or what not to do.

Besides, it can't be easy dealing with pedophilia apologists, enablers, and toleration advocates like Mr. Benjiboi when you yourself are operating under the name of a Sesame Street character.

...... And I was doing so well, up into the last paragraph. *laughs*

[ulsterman]

Fortunately, there is at least one person with a working brain on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/71.139.2.170

You mean this blocked chappie? Blocked by our own Alison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3A71.139.2.170

I like the block reason; it reads in part "being used to harass an editor / previous sock-puppeteer". Since when was it policy to disapprove of harassing a sock-puppeteer?

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Sir Cedric recently summarized quite well why Der Jimbo's pronouncements just don't carry that weight the way they used to.

[Alison]

Can we change the title of this thread to something more factually accurate?

How about: It's Official: No Official Policy
Subtitle: Just vague "commonly understood" unwritten practice

The point being that no one quite understands or agrees on what is euphemistically referred to as "commonly understood common sense".

How about: It's Official: Mo' pedo
Subtitle: "The community" always does the sensible thing .... right?

You mean this blocked chappie? Blocked by our own Alison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3A71.139.2.170

I like the block reason; it reads in part "being used to harass an editor / previous sock-puppeteer". Since when was it policy to disapprove of harassing a sock-puppeteer?

Oh LOL ambiguity