User talk:Abd

Welcome to WikiIndex! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Koavf (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure

I came to Wikiindex because I was pointed here by Leucosticte. However, I'm not his meat puppet. I do not approve of his description of Nathania, as an example. Leucosticte is, however, not a pedophile, has not been charged with any sex crimes, but is a radical libertarian who tends to take up highly unpopular causes, in the name of freedom, and then he will present what are often rational arguments to be considered. He then appears to be advocating the cause.

Those attacking him here will continue unless stopped. They are truly fanatic, and they will attack anyone who simply tries to stop the attacks. On RationalWiki, for simply pointing out fact, with evidence, I was told to rape my kids. And I do have children, lots of them. And I'm in regular contact with the Department of Children and Families. The extremists within the anti-pedophilia movement openly state that "pedophiles" should be castrated, violently tortured and killed, and so should anyone who supports or defends them.

Nathan is right about one thing. Hysteria about this issue is rampant. It is obvious that some deep buttons are being pushed.

The question here is whether or not wikis regarding issues and containing advocacy that is widely considered horrific, inhuman, repulsive, something to be stamped out, should be covered here. And if so, how should they be handled? I'm obviously new here; however, I have long been interested in and involved in the wiki movement, I started my first wiki about a dozen years ago, and was on-line with the W.E.L.L in the 1980s. I do not necessarily have easy answers.

Whatever I'm doing here, I will stop doing on the request of any established editor, and would then consult site administration before proceeding.

The vandals and trolls (who may think of themselves as "defending children," but they are not, they are acting out their own hysteria, berserking) will attack, and it can be predicted to increase. That could be stopped by banning Leucosticte, but that would set a very poor precedent. Some of Leucosticte's work here may be unnecessarily provocative. He can be regulated. He is likely to respect that.

It is unclear to what extent WikiIndex wants to allow site criticisms and hostile tagging. I'm watching and hopefully learning. --Abd (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Having fun?

So, are you having fun at WikiIndex yet? I think the site has some potential to be a less biased and better-run (i.e. better-sysoped and -bureaucrated) site than RationalWiki and RationalWikiWiki, and yet could serve some of the same functions as those sites in providing coverage of the wikisphere and the people in it. The question is whether we want to limit pages here to just being a paragraph or so about each wiki, along with a template with a few useful parameters; or whether we want to give more than just the most cursory of descriptions. Leucosticte (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird that you would compare WikiIndex to those sites, one of which was a joke site about a joke site and is defunct, except as bits and pieces were preserved by you and others.

WikiIndex could indeed provide coverage of the "wikisphere," but the issue would be how. You want to do it with ad hoc wiki editing, "anyone can edit," which is somewhat natural, and doomed to failure. Didn't work in the WMF wikis, what makes you think it would work here?

You could easily start a site that is just what you want. However, your tendency is to mix a possible community goal with your own, such that your own personal and highly idiosyncratic goals dominate, to the extent that if you run the wiki, it's dead or trashed or both.

You might have done differently at Mises, I have not investigated. Did you? I would guess so, bcause you still have your privileges there.

And then you stick your tongue out at the courts and the parole officers, so that they toss you back into prison and you can't maintain your sites. "They aren't supposed to do that, it is not against the law to stick out my tongue." Except what you actually do is against the law, or close. And the law is not always fair. "Not fair!" is what kids say. They think it matters. However, the children's book that I read to my kids which has some kids saying that, had those kids be the troublemakers, they pranked the other kids, sat on their lunches, ran into them carelessly and said "Sorry!" when they obviously did not care, etc. Yoko's World of Kindness is the book.

A real ChildWiki would have resources by and for children and those who care for and support children. Your ChildWiki might as well have recipes for preparing and serving children for dinner, a Modest Proposal, and that is not far from what's on one of your pages. Mayonnaise. Everything is better with mayo.

To you, children are objects, pawns in a pseudo-intellectual game, "free" if they have access to guns, sex, and drugs, and "oppressed" if they don't. Nathan, that's really weird. That debate over "peace" on the ChildWiki front page, you report in the article here, demonstrates how utterly isolated you are, and thus how isolated any wiki that you dominate will be, unless you change your spots. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)