FT2 defends Pedophile's "right" to edit, Uses Meta RfC to intimidate those saying it is wrong Options

[Ottava]

See here for the current drama. He wants to go at me because he doesn't like it that I pointed out that he defended pedophiles "right" to edit and in doing so pushed a fringe POV that makes him an inappropriate voice when discussing the sexual content related policies.

Notice how he tries to pretend to be a swell guy and I am so awful, where I then point out Bishonen's block of him for blatant abuse and disruption while I was one of the few trying to stop the drama. He sure likes to try and hide who he really is.

[GlassBeadGame]

See here for the current drama. He wants to go at me because he doesn't like it that I pointed out that he defended pedophiles "right" to edit and in doing so pushed a fringe POV that makes him an inappropriate voice when discussing the sexual content related policies.

Notice how he tries to pretend to be a swell guy and I am so awful, where I then point out Bishonen's block of him for blatant abuse and disruption while I was one of the few trying to stop the drama. He sure likes to try and hide who he really is.

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

[Sxeptomaniac]

Isn't there someone sane who will not turn this into an embarrassment who can lead this charge?

I'm not sure what charge needs to be led. Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

[Somey]

...Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

Reasonable Wikipedian, you mean? I suspect most people who haven't been inculcated/indoctrinated into the WP Way of Doing Things™ would tend to agree with Ottava, particularly if they happen to be parents of young-ish children. They might not agree with his tone or even his methods, but they'd probably agree with him "in principle," at least.

Personally, I don't think WP'ers should feel obligated to seek out background info elsewhere on other WP'ers when those other WP'ers say or do something questionable with respect to child-sexuality-related articles or whatever, though it would be nice if they would, so that people like Ottava (or me, for that matter) won't have to make that choice and go to all that trouble themselves (or ourselves, as the case may be). But at the very least, WP'ers should never, ever actually ignore solid evidence from other websites that indicates one of theirs is a pedophile or pedo-advocate - that's just common sense, seems to me.

[Sxeptomaniac]

...Skimming things, it seems like FT2's position is basically that WP editors shouldn't be digging up information from around the internet to use against editors who have otherwise not caused any problems. Meanwhile, Ottava seems to believe that if he can dig up any evidence that someone is a supposed pervert, pedophile, whatever, they should be immediately banned. I don't see why a reasonable person would support Ottava's stance.

Reasonable Wikipedian, you mean? I suspect most people who haven't been inculcated/indoctrinated into the WP Way of Doing Things™ would tend to agree with Ottava, particularly if they happen to be parents of young-ish children. They might not agree with his tone or even his methods, but they'd probably agree with him "in principle," at least.

Not really. I've been a little too close to some real-life sex offender witch-hunts to feel comfortable with anything that gets too close to making it a permanent stigma. Innocent people get caught in Ottava's type of hysteria. Where does it stop? That's what bothers me about Ottava's position: I don't think he understands the concept of a measured response.

Personally, I don't think WP'ers should feel obligated to seek out background info elsewhere on other WP'ers when those other WP'ers say or do something questionable with respect to child-sexuality-related articles or whatever, though it would be nice if they would, so that people like Ottava (or me, for that matter) won't have to make that choice and go to all that trouble themselves (or ourselves, as the case may be). But at the very least, WP'ers should never, ever actually ignore solid evidence from other websites that indicates one of theirs is a pedophile or pedo-advocate - that's just common sense, seems to me.

I'm not advocating ignoring solid evidence, especially if it relates to activity on WP, but I definitely don't believe it's grounds, in and of itself, for any action. Their edits, particularly if they overlap with topics related to sex or children, should be examined (very, very closely), but it's unlikely to be an issue if their edits are unrelated to such topics. If their edits/actions on WP are questionable, then I'm all for taking action (as some did with Haiduc, eventually). However, booting anyone other editors were able to dig up dirt on would not be right.

[taiwopanfob]

I'm not advocating ignoring solid evidence, especially if it relates to activity on WP, but I definitely don't believe it's grounds, in and of itself, for any action. Their edits, particularly if they overlap with topics related to sex or children, should be examined (very, very closely), but it's unlikely to be an issue if their edits are unrelated to such topics. If their edits/actions on WP are questionable, then I'm all for taking action (as some did with Haiduc, eventually). However, booting anyone other editors were able to dig up dirt on would not be right.

The damage they can inflict is way out of proportion to their frequency of occurrence in the population. There are so few of them, in fact, that to throw the lot out without much further consideration is the best plan of action for at least two good reasons:

0. It's the inherently stable, low-energy position. No one needs to waste examining their edits "very, very closely". Also nipped in the bud are the drama-attractors like wiki-trials and the like, should someone notice something untoward.

1. The trivial loss in talent (if any) by summary dismissal of these people will be easily made up for by increases elsewhere due to increased trust of the environment. (Sweep the few criminals from the park and many, many, more people will start bringing their families for picnics again.)

Honestly, that you are even entertaining these folk with dialog and debate is excellent evidence that you are far, far too gullible for your own good. You are being conned, and conning yourself as well. AGF has it's limits, and you are all bending over backwards to accommodate ... who?

[Sxeptomaniac]

The damage they can inflict is way out of proportion to their frequency of occurrence in the population. There are so few of them, in fact, that to throw the lot out without much further consideration is the best plan of action for at least two good reasons:

0. It's the inherently stable, low-energy position. No one needs to waste examining their edits "very, very closely". Also nipped in the bud are the drama-attractors like wiki-trials and the like, should someone notice something untoward.

I fail to see what is "low-energy" about digging up dirt from around the internet. I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

1. The trivial loss in talent (if any) by summary dismissal of these people will be easily made up for by increases elsewhere due to increased trust of the environment. (Sweep the few criminals from the park and many, many, more people will start bringing their families for picnics again.)

Kicking out shady characters and criminals is one thing; summarily booting any suspected "pedophiles" is a whole different matter.

Honestly, that you are even entertaining these folk with dialog and debate is excellent evidence that you are far, far too gullible for your own good. You are being conned, and conning yourself as well. AGF has it's limits, and you are all bending over backwards to accommodate ... who?

And thinking that shooting from the hip will bring back the sunshine and rainbows is your own brand of self-con. These are people. Sometimes sick and twisted ones who don't belong, sometimes ones who made a mistake or misspoke at some point, and sometimes innocent. The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

[Somey]

I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

First of all, don't call them "pedophiles" - come up with some sort of code word, Wikipedians are good at that. Second, there's nothing stopping Wikipedia from doing this stuff in private online venues - sure, there will be leaks, but leaks are a far cry from blaring it all over heavily-watched pages like AN/I and Jimbo's talk page. Third, aren't we talking about open-and-shut cases? If we're talking about "judgment calls," then sure, give people the benefit of the doubt, as long as it's reasonable doubt. I'm not saying WP should set up some sort of court-like thing for this; just use common sense, but don't say "things will be OK if we just watch them closely from now on" - you're doing the entire internet a disservice with that kind of talk. Remember, they're not necessarily dumber than you are.

The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

Agreed, but when you have a solid case, particularly a "self-identifier," don't get distracted or held up by people like FT2. Just ban the accounts, quietly if you prefer, and have done with it.

[Sxeptomaniac]

... (cut for brevity)

This all seems way off-topic, in addition to being a bunch of false assumptions regarding what I was saying, so I'll just skip to addressing Somey.

I also don't see how this position would avoid drama. You'd be asking for a whole hell of a lot of drama as soon as a few innocent people get called "pedophiles" and blocked for it. They wouldn't be satisfied with "our mistake, you're unblocked." They would be supremely pissed at being called something so offensive.

First of all, don't call them "pedophiles" - come up with some sort of code word, Wikipedians are good at that. Second, there's nothing stopping Wikipedia from doing this stuff in private online venues - sure, there will be leaks, but leaks are a far cry from blaring it all over heavily-watched pages like AN/I and Jimbo's talk page. Third, aren't we talking about open-and-shut cases? If we're talking about "judgment calls," then sure, give people the benefit of the doubt, as long as it's reasonable doubt. I'm not saying WP should set up some sort of court-like thing for this; just use common sense, but don't say "things will be OK if we just watch them closely from now on" - you're doing the entire internet a disservice with that kind of talk. Remember, they're not necessarily dumber than you are.

I wasn't talking about open-and-shut cases, and it doesn't appear that's what Ottava's been talking about. FT2 seems to be the one advocating limiting summary blocks to the clear-cut situations.

I also didn't say "just watch" pedophiles. I was commenting that, if evidence from offsite surfaces that a WP editor might be pro-pedophile activist or some other kind of problem, then they should absolutely have their edits scrutinized to see if there is some subtle skewing going on. However, some offsite item shouldn't be enough in itself, for a variety of reasons.

The fearful, paranoid response is far more gullible than taking a little time to check things out and give people an opportunity to explain themselves. WP has certainly been too permissive about such problems in the past, but swinging to the opposite extreme is rarely wise.

Agreed, but when you have a solid case, particularly a "self-identifier," don't get distracted or held up by people like FT2. Just ban the accounts, quietly if you prefer, and have done with it.

Now I'm just confused as to what you're talking about, or think you're talking about. I'll admit I didn't read the original link really closely, but FT2 clearly states he supports current WP policy on the subject early on.

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

His position, as opposed to what little I could follow of Ottava's, appears quite reasonable. I'm rather surprised how many people seem to be taking Ottava's claims at face value. Ottava is the guy who started calling someone a pervert for mentioning he has naked baby pictures of his own kids, after all.

[Somey]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" - evidence which, to be fair, could be the result of an impersonation attempt, so it would have to be evaluated very carefully. But if they're going to reject it out-of-hand just because it's "offsite," realistically that's the same as saying they don't really care. I understand why they don't want to, because it probably feels like "cyberstalking" to them and is therefore abhorrent. But "cyberstalking" doesn't always have to lead to "outing," much less "ruined lives." Sometimes it's just what you have to do to cover your own ass.

Mind you, I don't think WP'ers should be doing this sort of thing themselves either - it should be handled by people whose job it is to deal with things like this. But obviously the WMF isn't going to get involved, so that leaves youse-guys. The sad thing, as always, is that you're doing all the work and they're taking the credit, and of course getting all the money.

[tarantino]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" -

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

This post has been edited by tarantino: Fri 15th October 2010, 2:40am

[Sxeptomaniac]

His exact words are, "The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked'. This is the position I have stated to Ottava."

As I understand it, the difference (aside from the definition of "solid case") is that FT2 would probably want to reject anything from a non-Wikimedia site that might implicate a WP user as a pedophilia advocate. In other words, "no offsite evidence" -

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

I would wonder how we would be so sure it's the same guy. If the editor has no history of editing articles related to kids or sexuality, and hasn't initiated contact with any younger editors, then I think it's reasonable to at least have an admin/arb contact the person privately about the evidence.

If someone really were a NAMBLA member, it means they probably will be an activist on some level, giving some evidence on-wiki of their screwed-up opinions.

[carbuncle]

Sxeptomaniac, what if a ~40 year old wikimedian in good standing that has evidenced no public problematic behavior on-wiki recently, had reported in another forum that he was a member of NAMBLA. In your opinion, is that a problem waiting to be solved?

What if he also collects photos of muscular teen-age boys in their boxers?

I would wonder how we would be so sure it's the same guy. If the editor has no history of editing articles related to kids or sexuality, and hasn't initiated contact with any younger editors, then I think it's reasonable to at least have an admin/arb contact the person privately about the evidence.

If someone really were a NAMBLA member, it means they probably will be an activist on some level, giving some evidence on-wiki of their screwed-up opinions.

It has to be acknowledged that there is always a chance for misidentification, but I think we have to start from the assumption that there are solid reasons to believe that the editor is the NAMBLA member. Those reasons are likely to be related to the person's edits, but those identifying edits may not be related to kids or sexuality. They are more likely to be related to disclosing personal information that connects the online identities.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that we are certain that the hypothetical NAMBLA member is the WP editor. So the question becomes

Should Wikipedia allow known paedophiles to edit?

There is an argument to be made -- and some make the argument very strenuously -- that so long as an editor is not pushing a certain point of view, it does not matter if they are a racist or paedophile or Scientologist or Opus Dei member or what have you. It is not an unreasonable argument, but try asking a different question:

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Fri 15th October 2010, 3:06pm

[Milton Roe]

How do other top ten internet sites deal with known paedophiles?

The answer is simple. They are blocked, banned, forbidden, and probably reported to the appropriate agency. Why should WP be so different?

You mean these sites deal with pedophiles as WP deals with the likes of Gregory Kohs and Andrew Morrow?!

Bizarre. And more proof that in institutions that exist mainly to survive and amass power, there is only one sin, and that is disloyalty/defiance. Consider the Catholic Church and paedophiles, as example. It's much like Wikipedia. You can do any personal damage you like to individuals, and it's never as bad as attacking the "government" or powerz-that-be, directly. They'll protect you from your personal problems, if you're an insider. But become an outsider, and you're subject to the ultimate punishments that they have, even if all you did, was insult them. Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

Human institutions are all alike when power is their only goal.

[Abd]

Consider the Catholic Church and paedophiles, as example. It's much like Wikipedia. You can do any personal damage you like to individuals, and it's never as bad as attacking the "government" or powerz-that-be, directly. They'll protect you from your personal problems, if you're an insider. But become an outsider, and you're subject to the ultimate punishments that they have, even if all you did, was insult them. Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

Human institutions are all alike when power is their only goal.

Milton's comment is a generic truth, showing that both the Church and Wikipedia are human institutions. The analysis is cogent. Intelligent Catholics understand this, and church doctrine, if I'm correct, also addresses it. I.e., the Church is not considered infallible in all matters. It's a human institution, albeit one with a role that is considered to transcend that; it is only in that role that believing Catholics consider it infallible.

(And many do question this as well.)

There is a somewhat analogous infallibility doctrine in Islam: the "consensus" is considered infallible. I actually agree with this as a practical matter, but not as an absolute one. I.e., the consensus, if it is real, if it is a consensus of the knowledgeable -- lots of fudge factor room there! -- should be "treated" as if true or proper.

But errors can be made, particularly because fact or argument may be overlooked, and, because it must be necessary to be able to correct them, a view that is "contrary to consensus" is not heretical as such, though, to not be disruptive ("disruption" is a problem in itself, i.e., as in the Qur'anic injunction to "not insult their gods," i.e., don't gratuitously insult what people believe, even if you know it's hooey), a challenge to established consensus should be stated with caution.... It is only heresy tenaciously asserted after being considered by the knowledgeable, in depth, and rejected. And what "consensus" means has always been the problem.... the sects become sects because they define their own experts and exclude all the others....

The real point of Milton's post was not about the Catholic church, but about Wikipedia. What happened at Wikipedia should not have been a surprise. I'd been studying organizational structure for years, and I wasn't surprised! I did think that there might be an opportunity to move beyond this stage, but I certainly didn't think that this would be easy or certain of success.