http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227146301

Tattletale.

Just thinking about one editor posting that another editor (who has been the subject of an ANI discussion for days) was posting about wikipedia somewhere else that wasn't wikipedia and can't be seen by anyone who hasn't been on the site for six months makes my head hurt.

The scoundrel! But seriously, FCYTravis did abuse his admin tools quite severely a few days ago, deleting an article after it had been kept on AfD, even though he was in the midst of an edit war on the same article ("if I can't have it, nobody can have it", basically). He then demanded that his opponents in the edit war agree to his conditions before he would restore the deleted article, and when this behavior generated opposition that he couldn't handle, he went on wikibreak and deleted his user talk page. He should be desysopped for his actions in that dispute.

Travis seems to have responded (quite refreshingly I feel) to some of the problems brought up on this forum relating to pederasty/pedophilia pushing on WP. Haiduc and fellows seem to be systematically FT2NLPing whatever pro-pederasty articles they can invent. There is clearly one admin that seems to have noticed the pro-perv fantasy and they actually give a damn about sorting it out.

I believe the efficient way of handling that particular problem is to ignore the rules. The rules tend to be there in that sort of case to keep WP sick. All Haiduc and others have to do is contact boylove newsgroup and get their votes.

Travis may end up getting desysopped simply for responding to some obvious problems that were brought up here (I.e.punished for responding to an anti-WP attack site).

No doubt the sickos will be hoping they can get on with pushing unsourced namblaesque abuselove.

Half the prospective desysopping admins are probably hoping they can push POV all the more, and the rest probably couldn't give a damn as long as they can have power. Travis will likely just have to lump it.

I didn't even look at the article in question; it doesn't interest me who's right or wrong about the content. The point is, the article was kept in AfD, Travis then started edit warring over the content, and when he couldn't get his way he deleted the article unilaterally. He then tried to use his position as an admin to win the content dispute by forcing the other side to accept his conditions before he would undelete. That is just awful, awful behavior for an admin. You shouldn't be an admin if you don't respect process and use your powers to win content disputes.

Yes, I found that ANI post quite hilarious, as well. It's referring to a discussion over on the "OMNI" (read, off-topic) discussion board of FlyerTalk.com, a Web forum devoted to flying frequently. That site has an eminently sensible policy that you have to have six months' worth of on-topic participation before you can access the off-topic board. Keeps people from showing up just for the off-topic stuff.

I don't particularly know why he thinks I'm not doing a very good job, as the only two people disagreeing with me apparently believe that William Connolly is a "political hack" instead of, you know, an actual climate scientist with academic credientials. But that's neither here nor there.

everyking, your postulation that I should be desysopped for summarily deleting a page that contained false and misleading statements of alleged historical fact (according to that page, John C. Fremont and Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery were pederasts) is... ludicrous and really doesn't bear response, other than that to say in the face of a clear (and extremely dismaying) community consensus that I was wrong, I undid my own action and self-imposed a break.

This is one case where IAR should have kicked in. That article was and is a broken mess, and if my actions mean it'll get fixed, I really don't care if it means the end of my bit. Fixing the encyclopedia is more important than me having a sysop flag.

AAAAAnd here is my comment on the DRV:

Overturn and delete Synthesis. Categorisation of otherwise unrelated peoples whose only tenuous connection is that they shared a sexual preference. Like organising the phone book by whether someone likes corn flakes for breakfast. ViridaeTalk 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought hard about Everyking's point (rules are rules, admins are placed in a position of trust, and so on). But in the end, if something really is as badly broken as this, forget the rules. FCYT is entitled to make his point like this. (Though I feel that, having done so, he should resign as admin - rules are rules, after all).



Agree but then you are faced with the argument that we don't delete other articles because they contain original research. The point I made on the talk page, which was shouted down of course, is that the very existence of such an article, in whatever form, is original research. 'Pederasty' is one of those special words that advocates like to use, because it is a quaint historical sounding word (cue pictures of Greek vases with pictures of ancient Greek adults fondling the genitals of ancient Greek boys) and legitimises the activity in some sense, and because they can argue and obfuscate over its precise meaning. And Haiduc's thesis, that the history of homosexuality = the history of paederasty is pure NAMBLA.

Well put, Viridae.

It's futile because the DRV's going to fail, but it was well-put anyway. :sigh:

As an admin, you feel that if the community gets something wrong, the appropriate response is to reject the community's wishes altogether and impose your own? You feel that, if you are in an edit war and enjoy the rare advantage of being "right", it is appropriate to use admin tools to win that edit war?

If it was an edit war over "Where's the headquarters of Alaska Airlines - Seattle or SeaTac," you would have a point, everyking.

In this case, we had an article containing bald assertions that dozens of historical persons were "pederasts," sourced to the thinnest of original-research syntheses based largely on books or essays penned by people with a vested interest in pushing the POV that "pederasty is OK." I note that the article contained the assertion that a recently resigned congressman was part of one of these "historical pederastic couples." Actionable libel if ever that was seen. I attempted to clean the article up - and was summarily reverted. Twice, as a matter of fact.

So yeah, I pushed the delete button. Damn straight I did. I did what I believed was right for the encyclopedia. Because everyking, the encyclopedia is what matters at the end of the day, not the community. Ensuring that our content is fair, accurate, unbiased and sensitively-written, is more important than keeping the community happy. If we forget that, we might as well shut the project down.

Before I deleted it, I kept a Jimbo quote at the top of my userpage: We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.

If ArbCom sees fit to pull my bit (hey, that rhymes) for doing what I did, so be it. It will be a demonstration of how much importance this project places on making people happy, and how little importance it places on getting things right.

Very difficult. My view is that it is immoral and objectionable to be an admin. If everyone did as I did, the encyclopedia would immediately collapse because of the vandalism, and policies would be implemented to prevent IP editing. Then we could focus on improving content. I can't agree with one person (who is unquestionably right) unilaterally using the tools.

A bit like Iraq. Saddam was unquestionably evil, and anyone who opposed the regime was unquestionably right. But you don't sort out such a matter by using force, as the US did. That is also wrong.

Down tools now, admins!

You may well be right about the content, but the project cannot function on the basis of all-powerful admins stepping in to overrule consensus, not even in "special" cases. These things have to resolved through process. If somebody unilaterally imposes their own will over article content, and they happen to be right, that's all well and good as far as it goes--but what happens when you're wrong? How is it going to be fixed if a mini-dictator has a lock on it and is unwilling to consider the possibility of error? What happens to the encyclopedia if these mini-dictators are all over the place? Your approach is fundamentally antithetical to the collaborative, consensus-oriented nature of Wikipedia.

He is unquestionably right about the content, Everyking. Don't evade the issue.

As for resolving the process, the process is irrevocably screwed up. I am trying to impose some sort of logic on the talk page of that article, but getting precious little help, because decent people are afraid to touch the article. So it is left to a small group of advocates to bully their case through, threaten blocks, get blocks imposed through the back door using friendly admins.

The process is screwed up. Down tools. No decent person would be an admin. Stop now.

[edit] Consider the last block regarding that article (myself and Phdarts). This was clearly down through some back door method - I provided the diff of one PPA saying that this was going to be sorted out. Then the blocks. How can you defend this, Everyking?

The only right thing to do is to down tools, or to make the place a laughing stock until someone sees reason.

Could this goal not be adequately accomplished by having the off-topic board be read-only to non-established users? As it is, that policy seems to encourage badmouthing people behind their backs.



I don't see where he says you're "not doing a very good job", I see him saying you're not making WP look good nor trying to.

isn't the notion that Wickedpaedia is of a "collaborative, consensus-oriented nature" simple mis-information ? I think it is based on what I've been reading about their editors.

the basic attack should be directed at discrediting wickedpaedia; no use to try to fight their editors on their home turf; that would be like wrasling a pig in a mud-pool: you can't win, and the pig loves it!

<==>

i like the Bear Cavalry but I gotta take the avitar home and clean up the bad language with my PaintShop program.

He must've learned that last slippery move from SlimV, who I think actually invented it.

Baaah. And my comment is that an actual list of famous people who liked cornflakes would probably survive deletion. The pederasty thing goes only because people are looking for an excuse to get rid of an IDONTLIKEIT thing. Also, it's not as likely to have good references, since pederasts hardly ever give referenceable interviews talking about their tastes, but people do sometimes talk about what they like to eat and drink. Mark Twain liked watermellon. Isaac Asimov liked tripe with mustard. J. Robert Oppenheimer liked Mexican border-style food and dry martinis, very cold. These things you probably will not find on Wikipedia, but may one day.

One of the charms of Wikipedia is that it has odd and funny collections of information. So that if I want to beaver away and collect a list of bird species which need vitamin C (or don't), I can make one, so long as I have references. And plenty of people have done just that kind of thing, and that's what gives Wikipedia some of character which sets it apart from any other reference. Naturally the people who think Wikipedia is EVIL will not admit this. Oddly, some of the people who think Wikipedia is the greatest invention since sliced bread, are deletionists who want to cut the uniqueness out also, forgetting that WP is not paper, and inclusion is one way of making volunteers happy, and also serves to present all sides of all arguments. It also does not really hurt the work, since you can (as we all do) skip over the torrent of information you're NOT interested in. That's true even of first-class information which is undeniably 'reliable to a high degree."

Now, there is much information in life which is dangerous for children, and those with weak minds or bad preparation. But the purpose of a liberal education (as generations of graduation speakers have apparently failed to convince some wikipedians) is to teach people how to be autodidacts and to be their own censors and judges after they leave their formal schooling. Children remain a problem in how to deal with what you tell them, and there are some articles on WP (we just discussed "Hogtie bondage") which at least for children, come under the heading of LIFE:BEANS. Some of those who understand WP:BEANS apparently don't think the maxim applies outside Wikipedia, but (alas) it does. Even more so, as Wikipedia hardly invented it.

However, after people grow up, it's time to cut the umbilical and start treating them like adults. This might seem obvious, but in fact it's highly politically incorrect, and both the traditional Left and Right are against doing it (though in different areas). However, this is the chief reason I'm a libertarian. It has been said this is almost the definition of the libertarian philosophy: As default, treat adults like adults, until they individually give you reason you shouldn't.

In summary, let the lists and the information stay on Wikipedia. If you don't want children to read some of them, have an adult section with a Brown Paper Wrapper, and have schools and parents do their jobs of keeping children away from the Adult bookstores. There's plenty of worse porn on the web, so this is not a new problem. Do we care if adults are presented with a list of possible pederastic couples, with references from good to poor, which they can pursue and judge? No. In a reasonable world, the anti-pedophiles should be free to make a list of "Supposedly pederastic couples and why they probably weren't". And each would contain a summary of, and link to, the other. That is how you (should) deal with adults. So get on with it.

Milton
Mr. Aeropagitica

The problem with the article in question is that while there may be some pretty dodgy sources for the claims, there are no sources to the contrary - and that is something that the POV pushers are all too aware of.

If you read the biography of any important western figure of the mid or early 20th century it will not say (unless, of course, the subject is an acknowledged homosexual) that they were born at such a date, in such a place, was schooled is another such a place, married so and so, was (claim to fame), AND WAS NOT INTERESTED SEXUALLY IN LITTLE BOYS (OR LITTLE GIRLS), retired to such and such a place, died at such a date, and is buried at such and such a place.

The other problem is, that the values of society in that place and time (and rank, which is a real bug bear) are ignored for a modern reassesment - and judgements made upon people we no longer have the cultural compass to relate to. A modern historian might argue that the middle class male campaigns for the better treatment and conditions for 19th Century match girls was a subliminated desire for sexual congress with thin girls who smelled of sulpher. Such a finding would normally be laughed at, but find an austere figure of authority who liked to take male children boating, and the innuendo starts dripping into the learned discourses of that individuals "true motives", somebody publishes a possible scenario and - hey presto - there is a source that can be placed to substantiate a POV.

Simply, it is almost impossible to prove an absence - and the POV pusher is all too aware that absence of proof is not proof of absence when it comes to the angle they wish to present.

That board isn't about badmouthing people (unless you count politicians.)

FlyerTalk is a generally-serious-minded community of mostly-adults (as there aren't too many 16-year-olds flying 100,000 miles a year), and what younger people are on, are the mature type. Interpersonal drama is at a bare minimum - mostly restricted to the political-type threads, and even there it's quite restrained. The board is moderated and personal attacks against other posters are prohibited. There are no "OMG LOLZ SOMEUSER102 SUX HE CANT SEE ME LOL!!!!" threads.

FT is populated by people who don't care about Internet drama and have never heard of "doing it for the lulz." As such, it's one of the friendliest, and most useful, Internet communities I've been a part of.

A sampling of front-page OMNI thread titles as of right now:

Today's McCain gaffe...
RANT: People who wait on parking spaces
was Golden Girls the original Sex and the City?
Child dies in car as moron mother gets nails done for THREE HOURS
The Economist predicts $5/barrel oil (1999)
Israeli Soldier shoots blindfolded,handcuffed Palestinian detainee
CBC giving Canadian viewers 2400 hrs of Olympics. How much NBC giving Americans?

As you can see, that board has its Israeli/Palestinian kerfuffles, too...

You have elegantly summed up the fundamental problem with Wikipedia.

If the allegation has been made repeatedly, as for instance about Lewis Carroll (admittedly, 19th century), then there will be references to refute it. If, however, it has only been made in the odd fringe source, nobody will have bothered. Thus there is the perverse result that the less plausible the allegation, the more it will stick.

This is the problem with the "list" style of article. In the case of pederasty, Haiduc is creating some sort of glorious parade of wondrous pederasts. If there are any refutations, sure, it just helps to bulk out the article.

Thats why I say he's FT2NLPing it. FT2 did the same sort of thing with the NLP and zoo related articles. Its an opportunity for more FT2NLP selective editing, selective sourcing, and excuse filled yehbutyehbutting. Solution; If its an article built to support a fringe practice or fringe view, delete. Anything of any value therein can go into an appropriate context.

There should also be some way of having online perv administrators publicly horsewhipped.

Haiduc gets upset.



See also the "Pederasty investigation" thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=115998

( sorting stuff out )

a fellow by the name of "Haiduc " evidently make remarks to the effect



mmmmmm

here is what I saw from the "FCYTravis"



FCYTravis note seems quite well done... if he is an egregious sysop what sort of place is WickedPaedia?