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.

[powercorrupts]

How many unknown pedophiles will be using and editing Wikipedia every day? There are also people who do not actively abuse, yet have it in them. There are people who simply have extreme views - or as they would no-doubt say, extreme as others see them. As someone pointed out, there are the wrongly charged, and the wrongly accused. Everyone is out there somewhere and they all use Wikipedia - so actively chasing after any group (unsavoury or not) is just pointless. There seems always this need for Wikipedia to be used to punish people.

The perceived plan of Wikipedia (whether it is in reality a big lie or not) is supposed to be that through 'debate' the 'community' attempts to improve Wikipedia - until it is impossible to be abused for any longer than the shortest possible time. It shouldn't make any difference who holds an editor account - Wikimedia claims to want a well-written 'quality' encyclopedia that is more than just a repository of everything (though of course it so-often is little more than a list of cobbled 'facts'). It's basically a standards thing - and the standards are currently terrible, partly because the content rules and the various admin (esp when adjudicating at things like AfD's) are so bad. If editor identity was such a big deal, the obvious start in any 'cleaning up' precess would be to require all user's to show their real identities. (though that is not such a bad idea anyway in my opinion).

Blocking known pedophiles doesn't just set a dangerous precedent, it - so typically for these type of sweeping measures - ignores the underlying problem: that it is so much easier for a persistent 'agenda-aggressive' editor to contribute to Wikipedia, than it is for the editor who generally edits 'fairly' and according to the rules (or the 'spirit' of them, as they make so little sense), and who generally has 'honourable' intentions. (I think it can be argued that where there is an 'active interest' on Wikipedia, there is usually some degree of 'agenda' motivating it - it's basically a question of intent, degree, and how far you go).

Despite all the policy and guidelines (they will never call them "rules" will they), and all the gun-happy admin's huge powers, the table is simply laid out in the favour of the agenda-aggressive. Why? Because it's a circus designed for hawkers and rogues. It has a few good curios and exhibits, but the place will remain pitched on a swamp of decadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.