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

[taiwopanfob]

... (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.

Now that Somey has essentially said the same thing I have said, albeit more politely and in more detail, I guess he too can be dismissed as "making false assumptions" and being "way off-topic"(*)?

I'll add one final option for you, one that should be obvious, but perhaps in WikiLand is not. Namely: if you don't want to Hurt The Precious Feelings of the Pedophiles By Accident ("They are people"), then you can just enact a policy that says "You must be 18/19/21 years of age to edit."

(*) I suppose the latter accusation comes from my conflating of the BLP issue. It remains a deeply offensive thing that you fucks will protect an editor against "dirt digging on the internet", but anyone else is fair game. BLP, fuck-the-children, and numerous other facets of wiki-behavior are, from my perspective, a manifestation of an underlying condition and thus can not be as cleanly separated as you may think. Why are you volunteering your time to these people?

[carbuncle]

I have skimmed the original linked discussion but I can't find the "digging around the internet" evidence people seem to be referencing here. My best guess is that Ottava has claimed somewhere (possibly in IRC chats) that there is something on the internet to suggest that an active editor is involved with advocacy of paedophilia.

Unless this is just a pointless dust-up about FT2's position on banning paedo-activists or just rehashing the Tyciol case, can someone do me a favour and post or PM me the links? Thanks.

[lilburne]

I have skimmed the original linked discussion but I can't find the "digging around the internet" evidence people seem to be referencing here. My best guess is that Ottava has claimed somewhere (possibly in IRC chats) that there is something on the internet to suggest that an active editor is involved with advocacy of paedophilia.

Unless this is just a pointless dust-up about FT2's position on banning paedo-activists or just rehashing the Tyciol case, can someone do me a favour and post or PM me the links? Thanks.

Gawd knows what its all about, but Ottava has been battling the evil-doers in the 'Controversial Content' discussion. Something along the lines of "WE MUST CLENZ TEH TEMPLE." The others in this recent punch up (the evil-doers) have opposed "TEH CLENZEZ", but they don't count as they are "EVILl DOERS" and "WHORES OF BABYLON" and "WELL KNOWN FOR IT", having "PROVIDED SUCCOUR TO TEH SODOMITES" in sundry other places.

[Ottava]

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.

FT2 and I fought over Tyciol.

FT2 tried to defend Gmaxwell's actions.

Tyciol was an open and shut case of a pedophile editing Wikipedia with three years of statements about how it was "okay" to have sex with those under the age of 13.



By the way, TheDJ was making the same defense with FT2 on IRC, and Wnt was making the same defense on Wiki. It should have been obvious that my opposition was against the majority of the vocal people in the 'Controversial Content' discussion were all people who defended the "rights" of a proven pedophile to edit. Such individuals cannot be viewed as the norm when it comes to writing policies to protect children.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 14th October 2010, 2:18pm

[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" - 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.

And that pretty much echoes where I would come out on that topic as well. Ottava's position on pedophilia is a bit hysterical, while what FT2 is advocating is far closer to a rational response. Probably not perfect, but, on the surface, hardly unreasonable.

Ottava's claims regarding what FT2 said on IRC are questionable, considering the source.

Now that Somey has essentially said the same thing I have said, albeit more politely and in more detail, I guess he too can be dismissed as "making false assumptions" and being "way off-topic"(*)?

Somey made a reasoned comment. Though there were some mistakes as to meaning, Somey was clear enough that I could make a response and clear up confusion; you weren't. Your rants were assumptions and off-topic stuff about BLPs. if you want to complain about the state of BLPs, start a thread or contribute to an existing one on that topic. (I'm not normally particularly rigid regarding staying on-topic, but I'm not going to be dragged off-topic by someone who didn't even bother to find out where I stand on an issue before attacking me over it.)

[SB_Johnny]

Ottava's claims regarding what FT2 said on IRC are questionable, considering the source.

I was thinking the same. Was anyone else around on the channel that day to confirm Dudley Do-Right's recounting?

[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

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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 deecadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.

Pedophiles don't just create biased content. They also fuck children. But WP has Ottava to protect them now. What could possibly go wrong?

[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

[Sxeptomaniac]

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?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

[GlassBeadGame]

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?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

[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 deecadence for as long as it suits those who run the whole show and benefit from it.

Pedophiles don't just create biased content. They also fuck children. But WP has Ottava to protect them now. What could possibly go wrong?

The full stop approach. Very Daily Mail. Maybe someone will think I'm a pedophile lover? Mmmm kinkeh.

There are so many comparisons with Wikpedia and sex in general you need cross your eyes glasses to think straight. I can't believe there is anyone left in there mud wrestling with those mind rapers who has retained any kind of sanity - supposing they had any of value to begin with.

[GlassBeadGame]

The full stop approach. Very Daily Mail. Maybe someone will think I'm a pedophile lover? Mmmm kinkeh.

More like Mother Jones I would hope, but point taken. In the past when the libertarian dust had clogged all of WP and made it incapable of any response I may have resorted to the rhetoric of "the do-nothing enablers are as guilty as the pedophiles." We have gained enough adherents to step away from that now. A significant group of Wikipedians recognize it has a problem and are allies of sorts. They come in two flavors. First the "pedophiles write biased content" type. They would address the problem with "community" tools like RfCs. Now more rarely we get at least some who admit the outright threat the site presents for children. They are the ones most receptive to board action and outside intervention. Well, maybe a third type who want to use "pedophile" as a revenge tool to settle old scores.

[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.

[carbuncle]

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?

Are they? Facebook and Myspace have apparently removed registered sex offenders (which are not necessarily pedophiles, nor are pedophiles necessarily registered sex offenders), but that's the extent of what I can find with a cursory Google search. Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

You are right - I haven't offered any evidence to back up my claims. So, using Alexa's listing of top websites, here is an example taken from Yahoo's terms of service:

MEMBER CONDUCT
...You agree to not use the Yahoo! Services to:
... b. harm minors in any way;

And from YouTube's "community guidelines":

Don't Cross the Line

Here are some common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble:

* YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation. Please read our Safety Tips and stay safe on YouTube.

And from Blogger's "content policy":

Child safety: We have a zero tolerance policy towards content that exploits children. Some examples of this include:

* Child pornography: We will terminate the accounts of any user we find publishing or distributing child pornography. We will also report that user to law enforcement.
* Pedophilia: We do not allow content that encourages or promotes sexual attraction towards children. For example, do not create blogs with galleries of images of children where the collection of images or text accompanying the images is sexually suggestive.

Need I go on?

[Sxeptomaniac]

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

I agree that there are serious safety issues involved and that certain groups of WP editors have often been resistant to taking sensible measures to prevent unnecessary risk. However, I also note that WP does not tend to encourage socialization to the degree that many sites do. I'm not discounting the danger, but recognizing that there are a number of conflicting factors regarding WP's risk.

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?

Most sites seem to operate based on terms of service policy, and remove profiles that violate that. Since pro-pedophile activism would be promoting illegal behavior, they are generally banned under that policy, from what I can tell. Do websites other than Wikipedia ban based on information discovered on other unrelated websites? You seem to be assuming they do, but I'm not finding evidence for that.

You are right - I haven't offered any evidence to back up my claims. So, using Alexa's listing of top websites, here is an example taken from Yahoo's terms of service:
...

And from Blogger's "content policy":
...

Need I go on?

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

[tarantino]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

I agree there are good reasons why WP should have set up a standard terms of service agreement years ago (the resistance to doing so is another strange aspect of the site). Still, that doesn't really change my point, which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information