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

[Ottava]

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.

But it does say that the book is filled with attacks on the Jesuits, which you claim wasn't true.

If you want, I can quote from Galileo's works. The "witty dialogic sallies" that the work keeps referring is Galileo deriding his opponents after every proof. There are plenty of "barbs", and that is why the work was offensive.

If it was a simple work of science there would be no problem.

You forgot Christoph Scheiner as another target.



GBG

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2.

No I didn't. FT2's refusal to answer my questions already verifies to the public that he supports pedophile's "right to edit". The RfC is dead and FT2 didn't get any support.

[Sxeptomaniac]

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2.

No I didn't. FT2's refusal to answer my questions already verifies to the public that he supports pedophile's "right to edit". The RfC is dead and FT2 didn't get any support.

Ottava brand glasses: for when you just don't want to see what's right in front of you.

[Abd]

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2.

No I didn't. FT2's refusal to answer my questions already verifies to the public that he supports pedophile's "right to edit". The RfC is dead and FT2 didn't get any support.

Ottava brand glasses: for when you just don't want to see what's right in front of you.

Ottava's logic is quite clear. He reads the RfC and agrees with everything he wrote, it was brilliantly incisive, and notices that all the opposing arguments are biased, stupid, vicious, and, of course, support pedophiles. Therefore he won and FT2 didn't get any support. Any shallow appearance of support will be immediately recognized by the "public" as biased, stupid, vicious, and supports pedophiles. PEDOPHILES! Did you notice that everyone opposed to Ottava is SUPPORTING PEDOPHILES! Q.E.D.

I didn't notice Ottava getting any support there, period. Only one editor suggested that FT2 "chill out," but the same editor also suggested that Ottava chill out as well. These kinds of comments are always made. A does a bunch of outrageous stuff. B confronts it, and, perhaps, even describes it neutrally. Or is clearly upset by it, doesn't really matter, C will respond the same way.

C tells A and B to chill out. "Be nice."

For ready reference, this is the RfC.

I made some comments there which will probably reflect the outcome. Unless Ottava continues with counterattack, nothing will happen immediately. However, Ottava will be considered as having been warned by the community. If what I've suggested is done, there will be more specification of what the problem behavior is, though there is little tolerance for that, in general, on WMF projects. People are supposed to figure it out for themselves. I asked Ottava if there was anyone he trusted to give him advice. He hasn't responded yet.

My guess is that there is not anyone. He's truly isolated, and is only still allowed to edit there because meta is normally extremely slow to ban. (It still makes mistakes, but ... my comment remains true except that individual admins have been known to act from personal grudges, and that sometimes escapes comment, or is noticed but others agree with the result, and to hell with recusal policy, that's just red tape.

Meta is way informal, and has no arbitration committee, but I think I'm starting to figure out how to do dispute resolution there.)

So later, if -- should I say when? -- Ottava demonstrates the behavior again, he'll be blocked. He may or may not be specifically warned again, but once he's been formally warned, blocks will be hair-trigger. If he counter-attacks, as he is wont to do, he'll be indeffed. He does not seem to realize that editing these projects leaves a clear trail. You can get away with a lot if you don't call attention to that trail. But offend enough people, and, right or wrong, being banned gets more and more likely.

(I know! And I knew this going in. Being right may not be a defense. Even being responsive may not be a defense, once the bulldogs have taken a bite. Ottava isn't even right, that simply makes a ban even more likely. If you are right, you might gather defenses that may serve for a while.)

Ottava, this is sincere advice. If you want to turn this around, *ask* the community to do what I suggested. Ask it to tell you, precisely, what you should avoid, and how you could do what is legitimate about your agenda, without offending. And listen to the advice, thank them for it, even if you have to grit your teeth to do that, and, if possible, follow it. Get help when you are tempted to approach the edges. There are warning signs. You could program your computer to flash warnings whenever you type "lie" or "liar," for example!

When the warning signs arise, stop. Think. Ask. Slow down. Perhaps save what you have written as an off-wiki file until you have more time to think about it. I know it's hard to just dump what has taken time to write.) Send it to a friend.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

For ready reference, this is the RfC.

[Ottava is] Making unfounded, or unconsidered statements [such as]

Hundreds of thousands of pornographic images that are only used by a small group of people to wank to each other
Any credible medical textbook or guide only has one or two -drawn- images a made-up claim
Penis images are not going to be used on Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or the other sister projects. They are only used on Wikipedia
One image of a penis can be rationalized as education. Any more? No

I still think pedophilia is misplaced here and what is really being discussed is just homosexuality and its tendency to attempt to procreate memetically where it cannot procreate genetically.

The Wikipedia needs to promote the use of prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases.

apparently referring to agreement with consensus that racists, criminals, and abusers who are able to leave their actions off-wiki and show they are prepared to edit neutrally without advocacy are allowed to edit

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 23rd October 2010, 3:40pm

[lonza leggiera]

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.

But it does say that the book is filled with attacks on the Jesuits, which you claim wasn't true. ...

As somone else has already pointed out, this discussion is off-topic for this forum. I have therefore replied in the Annexe.

[SB_Johnny]

I still think pedophilia is misplaced here and what is really being discussed is just homosexuality and its tendency to attempt to procreate memetically where it cannot procreate genetically.

Again, the LBGTQ activists are well along the way to winning that battle, at least in the sense that homophobia is considered by most to be a form of bigotry.

The problem is when the pedophiles/zoophiles/FLDS/etc. try to follow their example. In fact that's often pointed out by right wingers who see normalizing homosexuality as being part of the slippery slope.

The Wikipedia needs to promote the use of prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases.

If you can invent that, you'll be a rich man.

[CharlotteWebb]

The Wikipedia needs to promote the use of prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases.

I used that phrase in a paper a while ago, except I was talking about religion.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I still think pedophilia is misplaced here and what is really being discussed is just homosexuality and its tendency to attempt to procreate memetically where it cannot procreate genetically.

Again, the LBGTQ activists are well along the way to winning that battle, at least in the sense that homophobia is considered by most to be a form of bigotry.

In a few vocal corners of society perhaps but it is an ongoing discussion that has far from reached all corners of the world. I also think it is an unfinished discussion.

Just to keep on topic and relevant to the Wikipedia review, I'd also like you to be specific as to what young age you think homosexual interest reaches down to and when it become pedophiliac because I still think what we are talking about in the main here is not pedophilia but just plain, vanilla homosexual interest in young boys, and an opportunity to bend the appearance of public perception of related issues. Fairly extreme or commercial sexual propagandist using the Wikipedia as others use it for nationalist propaganda. Sexual propagandist who even far more represent the norm of adult homosexuals. The line between the two groups, homosexuals and pedophiles, if there is a line, is bound to be broad and gray.

Obviously it is within homosexuality's interest to encourage younger impressionable individuals to adopt and accept it whether it is 'right' or 'wrong'. That is why I raise the issue of memetic reproduction and the Wikipedia as a medium of fairly clear defined memetic transmission given the preponderance of young white males.

The problem is when the pedophiles/zoophiles/FLDS/etc. try to follow their example.

The Wikipedia needs to promote the use of prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases.

If you can invent that, you'll be a rich man.

I think it is called "an education". The problem is, it is a long and increasingly expensive treatment and still does not work in all cases.

[Milton Roe]

The Wikipedia needs to promote the use of prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases.

I used that phrase in a paper a while ago, except I was talking about religion.

Religion is of course the perfect example of a "meme-complex" which includes a self-defending immune system, in many cases. An inquisition or auto de fe, famously, for Roman Catholics during the counter-reformation.

I'm not sure an "education" is a fix for this, since teaching children to question authority would be self-defeating when they're young [even if it worked, which it won't, because kids are genetically programmed to follow authority]. And when they're older and approaching adulthood, it's already too late to rid them of many of their preconceptions, in about proportion to how difficult it is to teach them a new language or a new musical instrument. Puberty is the greatest source of skepticism, since that's when nature intends that you stop learning and start teaching.* And by then, there's always a residuum of the stuff that got there "first" to fill up the cultural hole that all children have. Catholic atheists are famously different from protestant athesists, since they don't believe in different Gods.

I've sometimes been persuaded that the best defense against mindless orthodoxy is to teach children some fairly harmless and tolerant religion or mythology, and then let them strike out into the rebellion of philosophy against all myths, later when they can handle it. It's sort of like telling young students that electrons orbit the nucleus like little planets. It's wrong, sort of, but it's a better approximation of truth (which is unvisualizable anyway) than nothing. So it's a useful "placeholder" for the young, who have come to the point that they need some idea, or answer, NOW. And can't wait for the full story. And certainly aren't going to be helped by telling them that nobody really knows.

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Cirrcuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightening to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind---

--Miss Emily





* Imagine if parents picked up baby/child babble with the same facility that children pick up adult language. It would be horrifying. So nature needs some way to insure that information only flows one way, when one side is mostly noise. Thus language acquisition is severely curtailed at breeding age. I suspect that this doesn't only happen with language, though language is the most startling example.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

... nature needs some way to insure that information only flows one way, when one side is mostly noise. Thus language acquisition is severely curtailed at breeding age.

I suspect that this doesn't only happen with language, though language is the most startling example.

To keep this on topic, how does this apply to the 'noise' of the Wikipedia? Is the preponderance of editors still going through the immature babbling 'noise phase' or have they entered the 'not listening to the noise' phase. I see both happening.

Relating it to sexuality and how the Wikipedia is used by sexual propagandists, sexuality is both biologically driven, at its most simple, and memetically driven. Within the memetical aspect, all sorts of other pre-existing influences and structures come into play, e.g. inherent 'priest caste structures', very much part of human existence in Judeo-Christian societies, being used and co-opted to promote the meme of male on male sexuality.

As with any complex, interest drive topic, I think it is something the Wikipedia can only do badly and with a tendency to binary thinking. Any vague statement, followed by a hyperbolic jump as below, that requires 11 references to support is symptomatic of a system unable to deal with information sources and interest parties.

In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.[16] Homosexual behavior in animals is also widely encountered.[17][18]

And why "encountered" ... is it not studied? Or are we back to the Wikipedia bestiality freaks and Alfred C. Kinsey's gay cohorts masturbating the local dogs again? Does that sound exaggerated? Look at Benjiboi, who we have noted for his pushing of hard core gay porn and other stuff, chopping away at the Kinsey topic, supported by anonymous IP to keep it POV where Kinsey refused to release the names of multiple child rapists who documented, e.g. how many orgasms a 4 year infant could have over a period of 24 hours.

Or as the Wikipedians would have it ...

The Kinsey Institute has respected the anonymity of the direct contributors of the child sex data.

Oh, out it goes again under the pretense and with the false summary that it had no references. It did. Then a crazy insane dance over the removal of a single sentence mentioning Judith Reisman as "Undue Weight" not once, twice, thrice with an insult to the New Yorker suggesting the material is a joke, but four times and it remains outed. I bring up the Kinsey reference because he was an individual of extreme sexual addictions who is very much the cornerstone of modern claims and attitudes to sexuality.

The only rational way to deal with it is lock the bears of all sides in a cage together and poke them with sticks until they both become too maimed to fight or bleed to death. It just should not be done in public and at the top of Google.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 25th October 2010, 5:53am

[Milton Roe]

... nature needs some way to insure that information only flows one way, when one side is mostly noise. Thus language acquisition is severely curtailed at breeding age.

I suspect that this doesn't only happen with language, though language is the most startling example.

To keep this on topic, how does this apply to the 'noise' of the Wikipedia? Is the preponderance of editors still going through the immature babbling 'noise phase' or have they entered the 'not listening to the noise' phase. I see both happening.

The most obvious thing is the vandalistic "noise" coming from student IP editors. Easly filtered out by semi-protecting articles (which you see Jimbo Wales' bootlickers do perennially with HIS BLP) but which is very difficult to get done with other BLPs and even harder with non-BLP articles. Trying to do it comes up against the kind of parental indulgence that you rarely see outside of a movie theater where somebody's child is kicking the back of your seat, or making noise.

[Text]

Hey people, Geoff might be editing! Better get the checkuser cannon locked and loaded!



Do certified criminals who have paid their debt with justice have a "right" to edit? Isn't editing a privilege and not a right?

Criminals who have paid their debt with society might be knowledgeable about certain stuff, sure, like lock-picking, shoplifting, robbing banks, etc. but it's highly unlikely that they come to typical nerd hives like Wikipedia with the idealist intention to improve content for the good of humanity...

In the end it's all about stealth. Eye doesn't see, heart doesn't hurt. There could be hundreds of criminals who served jail time and are now back into society, and editing away, and nobody who's online around them knows about their past.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

That is a pretty shocking portrait of a child sex offender although I suspect most pedohiles are a lot more normal. If ever there was a case for 'evil', there is a working example.

What is notable that he manages to keep things together enough to function in society and even write books.

Would one expect to come up against such individuals on the Wikipedia? Do bees like honey? Because of the open door anonymity policy ... why on earth should volunteers be left to deal such individuals.

The Wikipedia is a voluntary organization. The Wikipedia, and its founder indepenently, gains the financial benefits and kudos of a voluntary organization. Voluntary organization are bound by a 'Duty of Care' and would certainly screen any volunteers interacting with minors and disallow minors from handling adult material.

The Wikipedia does not because it is petrified that addressing such issues, e.g. with verified identities as per Paypal etc, will kill it. They have to allow any sickos free rein in order to get their 5% or 10% out of them safe in the knowledge that it costs them nothing to have some other volunteer police the system for them.

Although, again, I suggest that a large proportion of moral panic and concern is not just about pedophilia but extreme homosexual advocates, the problem being that nothing in the real world exists in the Wikipedian tendency towards a simple binary view of life.

What and where are the gray lines between adults' sexual interest in young people and what are the lines of acceptability regarding the activities of the advocates of any extreme or commercial sexuality in an environment targeted at young people.