Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What is this?

I'm sorry but, what encyclopedic purpose does this page serve? The name and lead appear to be deliberately abstruse. The subject matter seems dangerously close to themes that have been actively suppressed by various administrive authorities recently, making discussion impractical and possibly hazardous. More importantly, some of this content may be in violation of WP:NPA, and is directed at former editors who are no longer in a position to answer to it. If encyclopedic merit cannot be established, I think this page should be promptly brought to MfD. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but the name and construction needs to change. Also, there was banned editor who added some valuable information. This was removed by another editor. No, Gwen! (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This serves the purpose of trying to keep track of whom is editing articles of interest who is and is not not a sockpuppet. This is in no wise an attack, it is a statement of public information, mostly taken from the logs. No one is saying that the editors listed here did not add valuable information. These articles are under minor but endemic POV pushing from outside entities, and information is a tool for combating this. I don't know what you mean by "themes that have been actively suppressed by various administrive authorities"; collecting publicly available data for the purpose of aiding the encyclopedia is permitted, generally. As to the naming, it's a wiki, fell free to make improvements.
I don't want a contentious MFD, though. To possibly avoid this, I'd consider moving the page to my userspace; it'd still be a Wikipedia page and subject to MFD, but less public. However that makes it harder for users other than myself to view and update it. So I'd rather not do that. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what Bikasuishin is referring to is the recent controversy over and deletion of the userspace page that detailed public information relating to Wikipedia editor(s), specifically SqueakBox. The stated goal of that page followed the same rationale as the one presented here. At the end, that page was deleted by an admin as a result of an MfD. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I don't know anything about that. I don't see that it could be exactly the same, since SqueakBox is an active editor (last i knew) and these fellows aren't. But I don't know. I guess since a couple of editors here don't like it, I'll move it to my userspace, provided that's an OK compromise; if not, by all means anyone is free to MfD it. If it's against policy then it shouldn't stay, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPA doesn't distinguish between editors in good standing and editors who aren't, and I would argue that attacks against editors who aren't in a position to set the record straight if they feel they are wronged cannot be better. I understand that your purpose here is not to attack anyone, but "compiling publicly available information in one place" is exactly what User:VigilancePrime was doing when he got a user page of his deleted at MfD, and some of the information presented here is rather more deleterious than anything that was on said deleted page.
However, that's not what I was refering to when I talked about certain topics being suppressed by "administrive" (by which I meant administrative, of course) authorities. What I meant was that most of the blocks and bans mentioned on this page simply cannot be discussed on-wiki, and are presumably dealt with by ArbCom privately. It appears that some editors received the ban stick for doing little more than mentioning the subject. On that account, I'd say the encyclopedia can do without another point of contention regarding those matters. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, just found this page, it looks good to me and not remotely like the Tlato page that was subject to Mfd after my speedying of it was rejected. There is always Mfd if somewone objects but currently in such a hypothetical situation I would vote to keep it, it doesn't attack, it merely compiles public information in one place. One could question the title (and that is apart from the yucky ampersand) but not the content. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody gets what I'm saying

Hermitian, Enrico Dirac, Karla Lindstrom, TlatoSMD, Richard Laube, Lundiaka.

Ellis Raimbault was a screaming sympathiser. No, Gwen! (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another hole in the list - Roman Czyborra. No, Gwen! (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are holes, fill 'em. That is precisely why this page is (for now at any rate) a public page. Thanking you in advance, Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The following has been suggested as a rationale for including Baby Love and its reincarnation in the list:

"This user declared their intention on both their talk page and at ANI - this is a direct quote: " to start a paedophilia advocacy campaign.")"

It does not match the criteria, in which listed users have to be either directly involved with the project (subscribed, one assumes) or significantly involved in editing its articles/related subjects. Between them, the users counting edits barely reached double figures, and the first one didn't even edit a related article in all three of their contribs.

The whole thing seems to be a joke that either undermines or mischaracteries the others' activities, depending on your opinion. Lambton T/C 19:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I still want to be aware if he comes back. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe he should be moved to the Toast section, then, as an obvious agent provocateur that's probably an 'Egg' in person. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You seem to know a lot about his intentions. Many of the first blocks of pedophiles on Wikipedia were for troll-like behaviours. John Nevard (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would just like clarification. The blocked editors are not pedophiles per se (it looks like they were blocked for "suspect" behaviour, unlike obvious trolls such as Baby Love)? Lambton T/C 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. "Ham" includes everyone from sincere but unacceptable tendentious pro-pedophile editors to trolls, at least some of whom were here just to anger and annoy. However, the difference is less than it seems, in my opinion. It's rather hard to seperate one from the other, as there is what I call de facto trolling. This is when an editor is sincere but loony enough so that his edits have the same effect on others as would a troll's. Really there is a continuum of motivation, sliding from "sincere editor" to "troll" with many shades of motivation along the way, I guess. However, motivation we cannot know, behavior we can. If someone posts (say) "9/11 was done by the Jews", is that person a sincere (but crazy) person or a troll out for jollies? Who knows, and does it really matter, and anyway the person is probably a bit of each. So no I don't think they need to be in seperate categories. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farenhorst

In fact, "Farenhorst" (who is a different person) was not a sockpuppet of anyone. He was accused by an administrator, and another assumed that there was checkuser evidence. After his banning, a checkuser was run, and there was no relationship between him and his suspected user. He was never unblocked. FarenhorstO (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, the case should be reviewed by an admin, and corrective action should be taken ASAP. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, first of all, WJBscribe stated in the block log that he had checkuser evidence that Farenhorst is a sock puppet of Voice of Britain. But a link to the relevant checkuser would settle that. But anyway, don't worry about it; Farenhorst was tendentious enough all by himself to be banned anyway. Herostratus (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So how do you know Farenhorst was not a sock puppet of anyone? You appear to know about him and also to be imitating him, indeed I would go so far as to say you may be stalking him with your user name, FarenhorstO. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The "checkuser" was behind closed doors. When they did one publically (Happy Camper II), there was no relation between the two. But that's irrelevant, as I just wanted to inorm people. You can run it again, if you like.
I know about the original Farenhorst, because I have long been in practise and friendship with him. I understand that another reason that contributed to his banning from the site was his rather eccentric disclosure of his pedagogy activities, which some intellectual caveman took as "abusive". For some reason, no one could link this and his interest in pedophiles/CSA investigations in the appropriate manner. Kind Regards, FarenhorstO (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Who and what pray is an intellectual caveman (other than a rather juvenile and unplweasant attack on your behalf). Thanks, SqueakBox 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)