User talk:Meco

Welcome to BoyWiki!

We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Etenne (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! I'm excited :-) __meco (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to list you real name on your user page. I understand that you are open regarding your sexuality but it is just asking for trouble. --Etenne (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, however, this is not something I would reconsider. __meco (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you here. I too am on that short list of WMF-banned users, as Leucosticte. Lysander (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A mark of honor, to be sure! I was banned on the Norwegian Wikipedia already in 2007 for not toeing the party line, although the accusations were completely trumped up. Then after more than 50,000 edits I got banned of en-Wiki in 2013 for allegedly being a self-admitted pedophile, and of course earlier this year from Commons and shortly thereafter project-wide in an irrational storm of hysteria with no substantial basis. Anyway, I get the impression that you are taking on the Wikimedia community. I don't bother about that. __meco (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really take them on. I just make it clear where I stand, and that their efforts to get rid of me will only work temporarily. Aside from that, I just do a lot of ban evasion, and I don't let it deter me when they catch me and delete or revert everything.

By the way, I proposed the creation of an RSOL wiki, and a Reform Sex Offender Laws leader tells me, "Nathan, if that wiki is your passion, then by all means go for it! Set it up, complete a few posts, and perhaps share a list of others you would like to write or invite others to write. I can take that to our Communications team (and possibly our Board) and get their input on whether it would be okay to brand as an RSOL enterprise. Even if it should stay on your own server, it could still be something we can link to from our site, though, and we could encourage folks to add to it should they be so inclined. Keep me posted on progress!" Would you be interested in participating in such a project, and if so, in what capacity? At the beginning, we're going to need a lot of content creation, but of course wikignoming is always helpful, and you could be a sysop as well.

What I have in mind is that this wiki could cover a lot of the law- and politics-related content that some people have complained has come to dominate BoyWiki and BoyChat too much. We do have to avoid explicitly advocating for repeal/reform of the age of consent on an RSOL wiki, but we can make a lot of the same arguments about adult-child sex not being harmful to children, as long as we put those arguments in the context of saying that the sentences don't need to be as harsh as they currently are. Note that RSOL doesn't go so far as to support the existence of an age of consent either; they're officially neutral on the subject, and I'd say they want to stay that way. They need to avoid advocating age of consent abolition in order to avoid getting viewed as the new NAMBLA; but on the other hand, I'm sure they have a lot of members (including me) who want the age of consent repealed. Some examples of articles that this wiki could have:

• List of incidents of vigilantism against sex offenders
• Minnesota Sex Offender Program
• Psychosexual evaluation
• Sex offender risk assessment
• Special sex offender sentencing alternative
• Static-99

These are all articles that got deleted from Wikipedia. At this point, so many pedos and pedo sympathizers have been banned from Wikipedia that we need to have our own separate wiki just to cover topics that Wikipedia would've considered notable, if the articles hadn't been written by us. (Any article written by a pedo or pedo-sympathizer is automatically considered a "POV fork," "poorly written," etc.)

Feel free to edit ChildWiki too, particularly if you want to contribute content that's too edgy for BoyWiki... Lysander (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nathan!

I'm really not on the same page as you, although I am very sympathetic towards both your industriousness and idealism. I am sympathetic to this cause/movement in much the same way that I am to nationalists/Nazis. Meaning, I agree that you are both being victimized and that your opponents are irrational and/or vicious. However, my diagnosis goes a lot deeper than yours, and I'm ready to elaborate on this assertion to anyone who's interested in it. As you may have surmised from several of my posts at BoyChat, I am convinced that we are on the threshold of transitioning out of the current paradigm across the board. I can see this quite clearly, and I am on the vanguard of this imminent event. You are attempting to revision and reform the incumbent paradigm. I see no point in doing that, for the reason I just stated.

Thus, my interest is completely absent when it comes to law issues, or advocacy, or resistance. I am interested in apprehending deeper perspectives, both from the protagonist as well as the antagonist camps. I am interesting in the deep triggers where psychology becomes blurred with and becomes overtaken by ontology. I already comprehend much of the overall dynamics that are in play in the world at this time. I'll volunteer one of the core ones as being the conflict between the genders. The "handling" of male homosexuality through social engineering and the blatant suppression of child sexuality and intergenerational sexual relations are the most critical corollaries of this conflict, the war on masculinity similarly. I don't see any sign of an awareness of these connections among the communities touching on the present one. That's detrimental in my opinion. __meco (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You lost me. Are there some BoyChat posts you'd like to direct my attention to? Yes, I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate. Thanks.

By the way, incarcerated girllover Vlad Draconis PenDragon (aka Matthew Mercer-Kinser) has a question: "I think I see what he's saying. But is he suggesting that we sit back and wait for the paradigms to shift? Or does he have some kind of an idea about how we can inspire the change, or hurry it along?" Lysander (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The first I posted on this was this thread. Then also see this and this, as well as this from a subsequent thread.

As for the Mercer-Kinser quote, I'm a bit confused. Who's he referring to?

I'll be happy to elaborate when you've read the post/comments I've linked to and clarified about the Mercer-Kinser quote. __meco (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He's referring to you. I gave him the text of those BoyChat posts and he said, "Interesting. But I'm not cool with the idea of just sitting around waiting for this change, that MEco seems to have faith in, to manifest out of thin air." Lysander (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Aha… it was to hard for me to make that connection. To begin to explain to you I would need to explain a little where I'm coming from. You know I was the leader of an atheist organization here in Norway. That was in the mid-90s. The following years I moved into areas of being off the beaten track, having several extraordinary experiences. In fact, by the early 2000s I set myself one goal (among many) of making an exhaustive catalog of states of human consciousness. I began investigating the deep basis of various religious and spiritual traditions, while all the time pondering the concept of God and the notion of a foundation of reality upon which everything else is structured. I did this mostly with the adjuvant use of cannabis, but later also extremely profound breathing techniques. The latter granted me on one particular occasion (in the fall of 2004) an amazing visionary tour of the ontology of pedophilia, which made me see the core of the phenomenon even to the extreme of males who are inescapably attracted to toddlers and babies in ways that will end them up with repeated and very long prison sentences. By 2005 I had amassed a convergent perception of the godhead as a moving target which could not be inspected or beheld but only approached through an organic process which also made the life of the subject converge with the full spectrum of life energies permeating the universe. (Remember that Reich showed how the sexual energy is a preeminent manifestation of the life energy.)

By 2005 my working method had also found its final, and present, form in applied Reichian sex economy, making both the use of psychoactive substances and structured breathing techniques deprecated (and being far superior to any methodical meditational or yogic practices). And by then I had also realized that what I was doing was in fact the manifestation of the immanentizing of the eschaton. In explicit terms, that "God" was going to make himself unequivocally manifest in the world with myself as the focal point (you could also say that the Son of God was being born into the world as God the Father (the Creator) at the same time abdicated his throne - this is explained in some detail on the page about holotropic homosexuality).

From late 2003 until about 2008-9 (when it ceased its open activities - largely due to my participation, I suspect) I was an active member of the gnostic congregation here in the Norwegian capital. Through this communal interface, but combined with my studies of various esoteric communities, I acquired a deep-seated understanding of the common basis for all esoteric/occultist/mystical practices. In particular, it was contrasting this with what I had learned from the teachings of Wilhelm Reich (in particular from my great grandfather's perspicacious popularizing accounts, he was a close and long-term associate of Reich) with the common basis of all these traditions which pervades all the world's power structures, that I realized that these had now all been defeated and that they were going to find themselves hierarchically subordinated to myself.

Now that's the stuff megalomania, self-aggrandizement and savior complexes are made of, some would surely object. Well, I'm not psychotic in the very least, I'm soundly anchored in consensus reality, at least to the extent necessary for social interaction on a rational basis (which doesn't necessarily equate with no conflicts). I'm not the least bit neurotic. In fact, my mental and emotional health is unblemished, and I have the capacity to endure psychological stress far beyond other people. With my now clearly realized vocation always in mind, I am therefore readily positioning myself, time and time again, into precipitous locations, knowing full well that my task is to evoke the incongruous, conflicted energies and subjugate them, concurrently absorbing and integrating their ideological and emotional components, and as a corollary making my unchallengeable status acutely emblazoned on erstwhile power holders.

How do I know I hold the attention of these would-be esoteric power elites? The answer is two-fold: firstly, through my dreams. Since the beginning of 2004 (ostensively) I have had a panoply of bizarre dreams fitting into several fairly clear-cut categories. One of these categories is attack dreams where I am being subjected to traumatizing events, some of these have the, to me, rather clear signatures of military intelligence or some of the esoteric communities. Another category brings me inside these closed elites to experience practices and from a first-person perspective the ideologies and emotional structures of their top echelons. It is all very elucidating, but of course, it is all also eminently deniable. Well, it really doesn't matter, what I am doing is not contingent on ordinary people believing what I say to be true and supporting me. My power comes from these elites themselves as they voluntarily yield to the ultimate presence of the coming manifestation of God. What is the second factor which grants me certitude? Well, logic actually. It all fits into the cosmology and cosmogony which I have realized. Although I don't have all details, nor all the connections, in place, I do apprehend the extremes (and have a realization of contiguity). And they are the connections between God, man and the universe. Not always, and not at any one instance exhaustively (at least not yet), and specifically not on demand, but certainly when I am inspired and incentivized to do so, I am able to explain lucidly to any somewhat intelligent person how these matters come together.

This brings us to BoyWiki and the BL community. Pedophilia lives vibrantly among the world's power elites. They practice intergenerational sexual relations with licence which they deny everyone not belong to their elite hierarchies. The world is growing increasingly aware of this reality. Now I am here to work these energy matrices. Those who wish to be part of the solution need to align with my process and what I represent. __meco (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Petition to Alison and Flyer22 Reborn

I propose that we present a petition to Alison and Flyer22 Reborn, and initiate four-party talks with them to resolve longstanding issues. Here is an outline of proposed talking points:

• Although people say pedophiles and pedo-sympathizers don't contribute quality content, Meco has 50,000 edits under your belt, and five of Leucosticte's articles have been featured on the main page (one of which retains FA article status). At least some of our contributions have been independently reviewed and found to be quality work.
• While we acknowledge that we are not entitled to due process as a matter of right, since this is a private website, we believe it would be reasonable to ask for as a courtesy, and that the community would benefit from offering this courtesy.
• Everyone knows that pedophiles and pedo-sympathizers are unlikely to use Wikipedia as a place to groom children for sex. It never happened prior to the creation of the ArbCom and the child protection policy. Although there has been a lot of media attention directed at online "predators" actual instances of such attempted "predation" (in the absence of a To Catch a Predator-style law enforcement sting) are statistically rare, and Wikipedia does not make a particularly suitable venue for seduction because of the openness of posts to public scrutiny and the project's emphasis on encyclopedia-building as opposed to socializing. "Project:Child protection" is a misnomer, as the policy never really was about child protection. It was about caving in to the demands of the gutter press that people with a particular sexual orientation, and their allies, be kicked off of Wikipedia.
• Pedophiles and pedo-sympathizers are given a lifetime ban; this is incompatible with the standard offer, the usual safeguard against long-lasting consequences from ill-advised ban decisions. There should be additional procedural safeguards when a lifetime ban is under consideration, given the high stakes.
• The child protection policy was not approved by the community, and making certain arguments against the child protection policy could be considered grounds for being banned under the terms of the child protection policy itself. This is contrary to the principle of the wiki way, in which consensus can change through free and open discussion.
• To prevent abuses, the ArbCom should be accountable to the users; this is the whole point of ArbCom elections.
• In order for there to be maximum accountability for ArbCom decisions, there needs to be maximum transparency with regard to the basis for those decisions. There also needs to be freedom for users to criticize those decisions without worrying about getting banned for the opinions they express.
• We, the pedophiles and pedo-sympathizers, realize that there is no way that we will receive an outcome that, from our point of view, could be considered substantively just. Therefore, at this point, procedural justice is all we're asking for. It would take the edge off our resentment at how we've been treated, and maybe finally make us willing to leave Wikipedia for a long time, since we'd feel satisfied that we'd been given a fair hearing. We basically want closure, and a chance to make a dissent that we can hope will appeal to the wisdom of a future generation.
• What would constitute a fair process, in our view:

• Ban-related proceedings (including the initial case and subsequent rehearings and ban appeals) should be public. With the exception of checkuser data and other personal identifiers (all of which can be redacted), all evidence that forms the basis for ban-related ArbCom decisions should be made available to the public. The ArbCom should also make public the reasons for its decisions.
• The initial ban proceedings should be a full trial like any other ArbCom case. Summary proceedings are a snare to both the accused and the ArbCom, since the resulting errors (or potential for undiscovered errors, through an inadequate inquiry) can adversely affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the ArbCom.
• Users should have immunity for speech and debate concerning pending ArbCom cases, as long as those statements are made civilly and in a non-disruptive way the appropriate forums. Provoking other users to anger through unpopular opinions should not be construed as disruptive.
• Users who were banned under the old procedures should be given a trial de novo under the new rules.

• Alison and Flyer22 Reborn should decline to assist in detecting and blocking users who were banned under the old rules, until they have been given new trials, unless they commit new violations of the rules other than ban evasion. The WMF and the ArbCom generally won't be able to enforce the bans without their help.
• Continuing to play whack-a-mole by unmasking sockpuppets and reverting and deleting contributions isn't going to work very well. It's just a feel-good measure, like the United States embargo against Cuba. You can feel good for inflicting pain on those you think deserve it, but if it doesn't accomplish the result you want, what's the point, when you might achieve your goal more effectively by some other means?

They won't accept our offer, but I think it's an important offer to make so that we can show that we suggested something reasonable that they shot down.

We might also mention users like Tyciol and their contributions. Russavia (another prolific editor) could also be affected by this. ChildWiki has some articles on various Wikipedia users, which I should probably bring here. Lysander (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, I am not going to engage in any energy-requiring efforts to challenge the present WikiMedia hysteria on this topic, however, I find what you have written to be well reasoned and well articulated, so you certainly have my support in presenting it in whatever forums you deem appropriate, and though I won't stand behind it, as such, I can readily be referred to as supportive of the initiative. __meco (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)