QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 6:41pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:25am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:14pm)
You want to see a genuine child-molester who edited Wikipedia?
Have a look at
MarlaisÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
.
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian
posted this,
John Vandenberg went in and
blanked Marlais' userpage--
and the history.
Want another?
TyciolÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
. Ask the Perverted Justice people
about him.
I can't think of a better example of an
ultra-nerdy Wikipedian.
One who happens to believe that sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable, incidentally.
Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.I've got more of this, if you wish to see it.
Don't forget
AnotherSolipsistÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
discussed
here.
Let's note that all three of these editors are blocked.
And according to you, you don't believe they should have been blocked right?
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:44pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th February 2010, 11:15pm)
You know this guy said he was under criminal sanctions to keep off the internet right?
You mean the edit(s) he made to his user page? You know you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet, right?
There might be something to be said about this guy's sense of humor (or perhaps even something to be said about how it relates to his ability to be an administrator), but no post in this thread is getting anywhere near what could be described as insightful analysis. Sigh.
I don't think anyone here has said they have concrete proof that his guy is a pedophile or a convicted sex offender. Nevertheless he definitely has a pro-pedophilia stance as evidenced by some of the diffs provided. Do you really want someone like that being an admin on your site, let alone editing at all?