QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:49pm)
yeah. really. ESPECIALLY gay males whose bitchiness can be aggression to the power of 10. and this is coming from the one that made
wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bifemale.svg and
wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bimale.svg which is on like a gazillion users' pages now - I think I was maybe THE most infamous bi fem on WP (
*still* banned for my involvement in this site) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
(also was pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here "Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics" .... yeeeaahhh. Thanks, 'Dave'
... I can't find that thread now where people were saying his user page on this Fæ guy's old account used to have childporn artwork on it too?)
QUOTE(Selina @ Sun 29th January 2012, 12:01pm)
this reminds me of the "Haiduc" paedophile who I argued wit ha few times before giving up (in the previous links), no one listened to me I saw what they were doing because it's exactly the same kind of slimy stuff PR companies do, it was only later WP actually did anything about the paedophiles pushing it (usually as "pederasty") -
wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Haiduc - and the articles still tainted - I just gave up on WP, they did a few bans for show when they were getting media attention about the networks of pedo users then continued to do nothing...
I just searched up
google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview.com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedophilia:
wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094 Commons and Pro-Pedophiliawikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438 Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talkwikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313 Self-identified Pedophile blocks (2007)QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Fri 8th July 2011, 10:14pm)
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia
Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.
I agree with this completely.
This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.
It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"
And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"
I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.
At the same time, other than that [the media], I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:
1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good
--Jimbo
THAT IS
NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|
Look what you created, Jimbo.
Look what you created...
This post has been edited by Selina: