Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the same either way, since I see your actions and my actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt, here is what I am saying:
Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house smashing my car window then I am going to go outside and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm simply using my ability to project force to enforce my will over them.
First regarding the logical argument that seems to be in progress:
I agree with both Ed and TMC that our rules, customs and application of force to enforce them are currently ill defined, sporadically and inconsistently applied.
Second on a practical note:
Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock in use as accounts names and spread throughout the Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of the database and site for a lot of potential users.
Specific example: A few months ago I was looking forward to coaching some nieces and nephews in some composition efforts collaboratively here. IMHO Since most of my extended family and better educated friends believe kids/minors should learn to function in polite society first (by example) and pick up gutter slang as appropriate later; the lack of effective well defined customs and consistent enforcement against all (yes even founders, moderators, nonmembers of the nonexistent cabal or elite, newbies, and other special people in self defined categories) severely compromises the utility of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and its ability to attract and help train future effective Wikipedians.
The above should not be construed as advocating censorship in the articles. Merely opposing the use of loopholes in our system structure to spread graffiti, taunts, etc. potentially offensive to large groups of people.
Regards, Mike Irwin