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?

If someone else wants to take the lead in pointing out how an ex Arb who was removed for corruption and lying is now trying to hinder the WMF's ability to protect children, please do.

Not a wiki-fiddler myself, but it seems to me the place to start is to address FT2's irresponsible support for pedophiles in some other time and place than the current RFC. That discussion seems to be contest between "Ottava is an asshole" and "FT2 is a pervert." When defined in these terms it is very like to be a tie game. FT2 needs to be taken on on terms more likely to result in a clean win. Besides nobody really wants to answer the call to be a part of Ottava's Personal Army.

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.

You think Tyciol should be allowed to continue editing?

What about Haiduc?

Now, maybe one of our resident tubbies can play Sancho?

Why not? You've been doing his Rocinante for long enough.

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.

Touché, Monsieur Pussycat!

WP should have and enforce rigorously policies that protect children from pedophiles. I'm external to Wikipedia and want less and less to do with that internal workings of that unpleasant place. At least one of those "editors" has been identified by an outside advocacy group (albeit somewhat troubled itself) as presenting a risk to children. It would be better if WMF would employ responsible child advocacy agencies as watchdogs. In the meantime I would criticize the presence of inappropriate editors without supporting the revenge mechanics of efforts of the like of Ottava. Child protection should not be a community activity in any event. It needs to be pursued on a board level and enforced by true agents of WMF and not left to the whims of "contributors." Even when Ottava has the right message he is the wrong messenger.

The problem is that no one in their right mind (i.e., a sane person) would bother investing the time, energy, and emotion. The lunatics really are running the asylum, and any non-lunatic who tries to make a difference either gets frustrated, or goes bonkers themselves. I don't think change from the inside is feasible.

I'm the only one who was willing to challenge the WMF executive when she backed down from enforcing our standards. I also stood up to people who were using Board members to justify corruption. Few people are willing to risk such things, and, as you noticed, it was used to justify keeping me blocked while saying I was given only one "appeal" per six months, which clearly has no basis in the original ruling.

You take what you can get, no? But seriously, if someone -else- is willing to step in, please do. I'd like to be a silent coward like everyone else.

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.


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?

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.


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


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.

Then I guess you'll have to be careful? I know, this may sound a bit difficult for a project that is notorious for its fast and loose play with facts about people's lives, but hey, ya gotta learn sometime, eh? How ironic that you people will do all you can to fuck up anyone else -- "digging around the internet for dirt"(!) -- but woe to him who tries to screw around with a Wikipedia Editor!



Typical for a wikipedian, you read too much into the analogy, thus missing the point.



Your reading comprehension problems are yours alone to solve.



Yes, they are. And you don't want them anywhere near your project as long as you cater to children. So enact sane policy and get on with it.



As soon as you wipe the crocodile tears from Wikipedia's face re: BLP's, I might take some of this twaddle more seriously. But even then, that is unlikely: kick the bums out. It is what every other venue that attracts kids would do. You think www.webkinz.com is holding meetings about this subject, managers and other people worrying about how "they are people who made some mistakes" and the like? Pull your head out of your wiki-ass and look around the real world.

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.


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.

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 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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.)

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 YouTube's "community guidelines":
And from Blogger's "content policy":

Need I go on?

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.




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

Here are the questions , think he has the guts to answer them?

Any predictions?

Any suggestions for other questions?



Sxeptomaniac



Yahoo shut down all of their private rooms based on real life FBI stings that went to people's homes. So yeah, there was quite a lot of off-site evidence there. Yahoo also takes in off-site evidence about users to shut down pedophiles, and MySpace has also disabled profiles based on off-site evidence. I don't know about the rest.

Exactly! How is this not extremely obvious?

Instead, we have the exact opposite on Wiki. Free speechers running amok, no ToS, no prohibition against illegal activity (other than copyright violations), child protection policy du jour - largely a reaction in proportion to the amount of negative media attention given to Wiki/Jimbo. Not only are there no controls or adequate safeguards, there are blocs of editors advocating for pedophile "rights" to "be" and to edit, even as self-identified pedophiles, so long as they are not disruptive. What in the world could be more disruptive than having a self-identified pedophile (whether identified on or off wiki) participating in a collaborrative project with children? And no restriction on said pedophile's access and ability to contact children privately through wikimail? It's completely nuts.

Bearing in mind that there really is no such thing as "The Church", just the people inside it (and the ruling clique at that), the full quotation should be "... were merely moved to someplace else and defended at great cost for as long as possible".

Who is The Church of the Wikipedia? The trustee and a handful of immovable admins, or are even the trustees mostly a front? The Church being Jimbo, Godwin, Michael Davis ... can we put names on them?

To play the Devil's Advocate for one moment, is someone a pedophile while they are not abusing or working towards abusing children? Should the Wikipedia disallow pedophiles who work consistently on neutral topics, upload no sexual content, and attempt no interaction with minors? The simple answer is they cannot because they cannot identify them. There are few real life people on the Wikipedia, no register of volunteers acting for them. There is no way of telling who is what.

In fact, editing Wikipedia would be an excellent activity for individuals on the sex offenders register who cannot otherwise go outside and interact with young people and the rest of society in a safe manner!

I lead in with that not to act as a pedophile apologist ... I am not. I would happy with a death penalty for them and see no redeeming quality in society having to afford their existence ... but to suggest that the prominent pro-pedophile activists are not actually pedophiles per se but misintended amateur liberal theoreticians, like Eric Moeller was. Let's expand "pedophile" to "child abuser", not all child abuse is sexual.

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

Therefore, "Should Wikipedia allow known paedophiles to edit?" How can they know them? The only way forward is proper volunteer registration process - single verified account - as per every other responsible charity NPO. One that can easily be checked against by sex offender registries.

Would Childline, the Boy Scouts, or the Samaritans allow anonymous volunteers to play with and educate their children? Don't make me laugh ...

Of course, then the questions arise,

"Should Wikipedia allow known rapists to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia allow known wife beaters to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia employ individuals representing their qualifications fraudulently?"
"Should Wikipedia endorse individuals who hide $800,000 from someone they owed it to.

Nothings going to happen, is it? Let's just all have fun and invite the kids to play! The Wikipedia has never had a moral core, not at least since Sanger left I suspect. The Wikipedia's moral core is Jimbo's core ... is the core of the core individuals.

Again, who are they?

Sxeptomaniac, you're right - the terms of service excerpts that I posted only deal with on-site activities, but I am implying that top ten websites will take action against paedophilia advocates based on off-site identification. While Facebook, to choose one example, quite clearly states in their TOS "You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender", I doubt any site is going to explicitly say that they will ban people for something they do on another site. That would seem to be inviting lawsuits. I can only tell you that Google-owned sites for one take such things very seriously and will act swiftly, given convincing evidence.

The WP situation is doubly or perhaps triply interesting. Since they are a non-profit charity, they do not have to abide by Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which applies to the other US-based sites. Nothing is stopping them from adopting it (or similar), but they don't.

WP has no real "terms of service" similar to virtually every other major website. There is a weak argument to be made that the various policies and guidelines make up a TOS, but a TOS that anyone can edit is less than ideal.

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

I think that's right, and this topic would be much more straightforward if it focused on edits rather than editors. Editing WP to encourage or promote pedophilia is a problem, whoever is doing it. If an editor is making appropriate edits on WP but engaging in harmful activities outside WP, the situation needn't be dealt with by WP - the individual should be reported to the appropriate authorities.

Of course, Ottava does deliver some mysterious gems:

Should say Brothels but my keyboard isn't working with some letters and the spellchecker changed it to what it thought was "commonsense" (I guess it didn't think anyone would mention a brothel?). Weird stuff.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2cc0e802-d2fb-11df...tml&_i_referer=

That is the article but now it put up a pay wall. Rather lame.


By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily. FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices. Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc. Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition. Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.

Despite the fact that I've been involved in several discussions here relating to paedophiles, I'm not actually one of those people who thinks that paedophiles on the internet are anywhere near the threat that some people make it out to be. Children are at much greater risk of being sexually abused by their parents, relatives, priests, scoutmasters, sports coaches, etc. And very much more likely to be either physically or mentally abused by their peers.

I take issue with the statement "It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia". The implication that gay men are attempting to sexualize young males for their own nefarious and lascivious purposes seems a bit silly to me. I suspect most gay men would like to see young gay men (or women) in a world where they are able to be comfortable with their own sexuality, rather than facing discrimination, ridicule, or abuse.

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.

Depends on whom you offend. From my point of view, of course, the entire Catholic church (and more than the Catholic church) is rooted in a peculiar heresy, a "mystery" that inherently departs from the tradition in which it supposedly arose, but .... never mind!

People do get stuck on old mistakes. Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology. Perhaps in spite of it.

Is it heresy to lie about history? To repeat unquestioningly, propaganda that is almost a thousand years old?


Therefore, for their own good, we burn them at the stake, torture them until they confess, etc. Better that they suffer now than in the next life, eh? We were just being kind to them, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

From Ottava, I'd expect to see a smiley face if he wasn't serious.... Isn't this what he's been about? Prosecuting sexual heretics?

Wow! Toss in some xenophobia for good measure. Obviously, red-blooded Americans wouldn't do this kind of stuff. Just those dissolute foreigners.

I don't mind, at all, people defending the Catholic Church, a beloved institution for many, but I do mind when they become offensive in the process.

There is no "right to edit," but there is a presumed warranty of fairness involved, that's my legal theory. Wikipedia solicits labor, and the quid pro quo is that presumed warranty. It's thin, but it's all we've got.

However, be that as it may, Wikipedia has no obligation at all to ban "pedophiles," "neo-nazis," "crazies," "criminals," "Catholics," "Jews," "Muslims," or "ornithologists."

It does have some responsibility to avoid abuse of the site by anyone, certainly for illegal purpose. Fortunately, that can be based on actual on-site behavior. For Wikipedia to develop an off-wiki investigation process to identify member of any of these reprehensible categories would be ... expensive, time-consuming, and would, if volunteer-based, attract the most deranged of editors, those who take pleasure in accusing others of offenses. Some of these even imagine themselves to be ... "Christians."

And it would expose Wikipedia to real liability in many ways.

Going beyond addressing actual evidence of on-wiki abuse (or off-wiki abuse rooted in on-wiki connections, as an extreme) is a Bad Idea. That someone is, allegedly or actually, a pedophile (which refers to preference, not to action), a homosexual (ditto), or heterosexual (double ditto) is no evidence of any misbehavior or behavioral intent whatsoever. I'm a parent, I'm a male heterosexual, and, hey, what about my daughters? What about all those female editors, some of them underage?

Believe it or not, the police were called to investigate when, in a meeting of a 12-step program, I acknowledged how wonderful it felt when my two adopted daughters, one Chinese, one Ethiopian, fell asleep, one with her head on one shoulder of mine, the other's head on the other shoulder. The police are obligated to investigate, and I thanked the officer. Who could not, of course, tell me who had violated the confidence, but I did know, it was obvious. At the next meeting, I talked about what had happened, and the woman came up to me later -- I had not mentioned her name -- and apologized.

Honi soit qui mal y pense. She was crazy, I understood that.

The difference is that Ottava would never apologize.

I, too, protest this grossly offensive stereotyping of homosexuals, the Gay Rights movement, and the linking of "gay" with pedophilia, a particular libel that should have been dead a long time ago.

By the way, I've known "pedophiles," though only those who were attempting to move beyond it. Complicated. One of these people, facing prosecution, privately admitted to me what a mistake it had all been, he'd rationalized it all to himself as "love" and a good thing, but then he realized that he was creating a secret, between his underage "friend" and the friend's parents, as well as between the "friend" and society as a whole, and this was very much not good.

It's possible to argue for the removal of age restrictions on sex, based on the practices of his or that culture, here and there, but we are talking about children who live and will grow up in a culture which very much does not accept sexual relations between children and adults, with some fuzziness only about the edges. Part of the sexual liberation movement has been the realization of people that they need to stop hiding what they feel and what they do; but this collides with strong social morays especially, still, when children are involved.

I was involved in counseling, once, a gay Muslim. Now, he had a problem! His plan was to act out his "preferences" now, but then, a little later, he'd go back to Malaysia and marry a nice Malaysian girl, and have kids. I asked him if he'd tell his future wife and her family about his history. Of course not! So he was planning to set up conditions where he'd be concealing his past. From his wife. To my mind, this was a form of self-torture.

There was, in his imagination, no way in which he could win, he was going to burn one way or the other.... it was absolutely no wonder that he was acting out.

I pointed out that the central problem he faced was a deeply spiritual one, his lack of trust in reality (God, Allah, whatever you call it). I made sure that he connected with sexual addiction recovery programs, because his behavior was neither acceptable by his religion, nor by what he wanted in his heart, a satisfying relationship with a man. He was seeking out strangers in parks, etc., very dangerous behavior, and he knew it. That's addiction, pure and simple.

It was fueled by his belief that he couldn't have anything better. I pointed out that heterosexuals who were not married faced exactly the same immediate situation, religiously. "But they have hope," he replied.

He had boxed himself in with a set of beliefs that limited the possibilities. What he needed was acceptance, of himself and his situation, and trust in something greater than himself....

standard twelve-step answer, in fact.

Now, about this Wikipedia addiction.....