Pederasty investigation, More dodgy goings on Options

[Docknell]

Hello, I believe this requires in depth examination.

Moving from the Jules Verne discussion, it seems the pederasty article in general has had quite some obvious pedophile activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty

The pro pederasts seem largely to be pro pedophile. They use the same sort of arguments throughout, and judging by how the article was last week, the pederasty seems to be an actual refuge for pedophiles looking for ways to normalize the idea.

The editor: AnotherSolipsist was blocked indefinitely due to being a self identified pedophile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnotherSolipsist

His supporting editors seem to be Haiduc,

Jeffpw
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036273

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222034042

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036221

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036472

amongst others


Then there seems to be a revenge block, this time towards one of the key editors cleaning up the pro-pederasty article, and surprise surprise, coming straight from FT2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2

It really does seem to me as though there is huge resistance to any cleanup of pro-pedophile pro-pederasty, pro-crank articles.

There's a lot more to look into

Docknell

[Peter Damian]

Hello, I believe this requires in depth examination.

Moving from the Jules Verne discussion, it seems the pederasty article in general has had quite some obvious pedophile activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty

The pro pederasts seem largely to be pro pedophile. They use the same sort of arguments throughout, and judging by how the article was last week, the pederasty seems to be an actual refuge for pedophiles looking for ways to normalize the idea.

The editor: AnotherSolipsist was blocked indefinitely due to being a self identified pedophile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnotherSolipsist

His supporting editors seem to be Haiduc,

Jeffpw
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036273

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222034042

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036221

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036472

amongst others


Then there seems to be a revenge block, this time towards one of the key editors cleaning up the pro-pederasty article, and surprise surprise, coming straight from FT2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2

It really does seem to me as though there is huge resistance to any cleanup of pro-pedophile pro-pederasty, pro-crank articles.

There's a lot more to look into

Docknell

That's incredible. I am going out now, but just to say I noticed on one of the paedo pages that they weren't going to bother with reverting the edits, but were going to take the complaint elsewhere. Unbelievable. How can FT2 be doing this in view of what is happening elsewhere?????

[Proabivouac]

Then there seems to be a revenge block, this time towards one of the key editors cleaning up the pro-pederasty article, and surprise surprise, coming straight from FT2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2

Add this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2
…and this…
http://bp3.blogger.com/_CPjfQwJ6uYk/SGdDls...h/FT2+Block.png
…to this…

"Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) - and indeed a number of users - are reminded of the Wikipedia principle in this case, that personal beliefs whether "bad" or "good" should be left at the door and not brought on-wiki. This extends especially to matters where editors may be expected to have compelling personal feelings. It is also not merely applicable to stances deemed "negative"…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._personal_views

…and what do you have?

Other problems with the Pederasty article:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=110189

[LamontStormstar]

Well pederasty, if I understand it correctly, if an adult man and a male who was a teenager, I guess 15.

Look at the arrest history in the NAMLBA article. Ages: 12, 11, 6, 7-9. The only charge for someone who had hit puberty was a 14 year old girl.

So if you send a bunch of pedos into the pederasty article, they'll say "The ancient greeks thought molesting 6 year old boys was normal". Pederasty could still be legal and accepted if they upped the age only a couple years to 16-18--whatever the age of consent is generally is. Like a 40 year old and an 18 year old, like a gay version of The Graduate.

But people on wikipedia are going and trying to make it seem like it was an accepted social behavior to molest 8 year olds.

[Peter Damian]

I have left this message on FT2's talk page. Reproduced here in case of oversighting.

WTF???????
You had better have a good explanation for this block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Phdarts

PD is doing a very good job with cleaning up some incredibly POV and pederasty-pushing edits on a number of articles. So why TF are you blocking him? I am trying to support but it is no good without expert help.

And what is this edit below? It says the pro-pederasts will 'demand third party intervention'. Who is that? You? This had better be good


What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory. I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221444762

Hinnibilis/Peter Damian Hinnibilis (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"

[Viridae]

When did you change account names?

[Peter Damian]

They re both legitimate accounts, look at the user pages. Each states that one is a sock of the other, to avoid confusion.

In case of confusion, I am not Phdarts. I am Peter Damian (who does philosophy) and Hinnibilis (Tuscan villas and, now, pederasty).

It's called a CheckUser block. FT2 obviously had evidence that he was a banned user based on the use of his checkuser tool and made the block - it's actually quite a standard block if you ask me. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? Hinnibilis (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We're all aware of you past account, blocked for harassment of FT2 - I suggest you disengage quickly from this and go and do something else, or you'll find yourself blocked again. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No way, I'm sticking to this one. Go ahead and block and see what happens. Everything I said re the other affair was proved and admitted privately by Arbcom. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 29th June 2008, 9:26am

[wikiwhistle]

I have left this message on FT2's talk page. Reproduced here in case of oversighting.

WTF???????
You had better have a good explanation for this block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Phdarts

PD is doing a very good job with cleaning up some incredibly POV and pederasty-pushing edits on a number of articles. So why TF are you blocking him? I am trying to support but it is no good without expert help.

And what is this edit below? It says the pro-pederasts will 'demand third party intervention'. Who is that? You? This had better be good


What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory. I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221444762

Hinnibilis/Peter Damian Hinnibilis (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"

Oh Peter, you really have no fear of wikideath, do you? It would be admirable in a way, if it doesn't just lead to a block and then we'll be deprived of your comments there again.

[LamontStormstar]

Here's a good talk quote:

I have re-written the introduction to conform with standard dictionary definitions, i.e. an explicitly sexual practice involving post-adolescent males and adolescent boys. Under this definition, actually much of the article can now be deleted, since the Greek practices do not conform to the modern definition.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples

Not a single man sexing up anyone before puberty.


You can thank NAMBLA and Chris Hansen for confusing people of what is a pre and what is post puberty.


I also now after reading it will never think the same way about Oscar Wilde references on Uncyclopedia.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sun 29th June 2008, 9:40am

[Docknell]

Here's a good talk quote:

I have re-written the introduction to conform with standard dictionary definitions, i.e. an explicitly sexual practice involving post-adolescent males and adolescent boys. Under this definition, actually much of the article can now be deleted, since the Greek practices do not conform to the modern definition.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples

Not a single man sexing up anyone before puberty.


You can thank NAMBLA and Chris Hansen for confusing people of what is a pre and what is post puberty.


I also now after reading it will never think the same way about Oscar Wilde references on Uncyclopedia.

This is interesting. According to Thatcher, the only result coming back is that the editor may be HeadleyDown, but its not conclusive at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222455553

Actually, judging by the way FT2 has conflated the huge range of global IPs on the HeadleyDown article, a wide range of people in the could world simultaneously be HeadleyDown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Does the editor in question seem to be "a reincarnator who specializes in massive sneaky pov vandalism with multiple sock/meatpuppets (around 50 - 80 over some 3 years, often 3 - 10 at a time on multiple articles" ???

It just looks like more of FT2's "catch anything that I don't like" sort of strategies. Anyone who doesn't like NLP, zoophilia, pedophilia etc - beware.

Docknell

[thekohser]

Please. Could we all remember that we are dealing with a website whose Deputy Director is a known public advocate of pro-pedophilia positions? What do you all expect?

A fish rots from the head down.

My candidacy for the Board of Trustees was based on exposing these problems and sweeping them out of the system. I came in last place out of 15 candidates.

Message received?

Greg

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia: An encyclopedia specializing in topics relating to pedophilia written by pedophiles who are permitted to conceal their identities while working with children at their sides and all the while granted immunity by an act of the US Congress.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Docknell]

Well I'm going to assume good faith and assume that the editor Phdarts is actually HeadleyDown

So the editor went onto the pederasty article and started placing edits that were warred over onto the talkpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...oper_discussion

Which was of course replied to by some editors (such as the banned pedophile, Haiduc and others) as homophobic propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...obic_propaganda

Phdarts also requested a wikiquette so as to improve discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty#Wikiquette_alert

And when the wikiquette editor passed on the matter (though gave reasonable apologies;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221430380

Phdarts then ran an RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...c_propaganda.3F

Which seems to have been totally ignored by those making accusations of homophobia


Keep in mind, that said Phdarts was also adding new peer reviewed information that states homosexuality is mutually exclusive to pederasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222263686

Which has since been removed by the editor who was collaborating with the self identified pedophile (Haiduc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222440622

I would say that Wikipedia basically sucks

If wikipedians ever get the pederasty articles in majority oriented order, I (and I am sure many people) will be totally surprised.

Basically its not going to happen because wikipedians protect pedophiles

There may be a token banning whenever one is stupid enough to name themself as a pedophile, but the rest will simply keep shtum as a result, and continue with the POV push.

So whether by design or stupidity, pedophiles will still revel with glee in wikipedia.

[GlassBeadGame]

So whether by design or stupidity, pedophiles will still revel with glee in wikipedia.

If you lived next door to John Wayne Gacy while he was active in Chicago and you thought something was a miss with his activities would you engage him in endless chats? Would you creep around the crawl space under his house? Or maybe you should just call the police?

[Docknell]

So whether by design or stupidity, pedophiles will still revel with glee in wikipedia.

If you lived next door to John Wayne Gacy while he was active in Chicago and you thought something was a miss with his activities would you engage him in endless chats? Would you creep around the crawl space under his house? Or maybe you should just call the police?

Its just amazing. And the whitewash is being poured on by the bucketload by the pro pedophiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222474746

A vicious attack on the pederasty article? Does he mean all that horrid wikiquette, majority view, and RFC stuff?

And of course no mention at all of the self-identified pedophile he works with and protects.

Incredible stuff! It would seem to me to be completely reasonable to conclude that a major NAMBLA promotion drive is actually on Wikipedia.

Still, at least some people know exactly who the pro pedos are. The trouble is, some adimins are protecting them, and the rest either don't give a toss or can't do anything about it anyway.

[Peter Damian]

Personal attacks on FT2
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Your attacks on FT2 somehow assuming his actions are caused by his support of pedophiles are completely over the line please somehow edit your entries or I would block you. FT2 does not deserve such assertions. Blocking socks used to circumvent blocks and bans are routine duty of administrators and checkusers. If you think somebody was incorrectly blocked on the first place then you should argue his or her unblocking. Sockpuppeting and uncivility would not only harm those goals Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis"

I was aware this editor was probably a sock of Headley down. But I never really understood why he was banned in the first place, except for his excellent work on NLP-related subjects (FT's specialism) and on Zoophilia, of course. His editing on both was exceptional except, of course, contrary to received views (FT2's) on the subject.

As it happened I have been through many of Headleydown's edits, and through his sockpuppets. I don't agree with the sockpuppeting but he was a good editor on many subjects. I still don't fully understand why he was banned in the first place, except for the fact he was quite persistent in his objective approach to pseudoscience (specifically NLP which as we know is one of FT2's pet subjects, to Zoophilia, enough said, and now to paedophilia. I was asked by User:Thatcher to help out with the pederasty stuff and you now make my job impossible. I trust Phdart's editing, he has been supporting me in cleaning up that article. And if Alex persists in trying to block me this is going to bo NUCLEAR in a way that you cannot believe. Really. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]] FT2 you say "Headley is basically tricky to spot, but often unmistakable when experienced. " That's because he is deeply opposed to the views you hold on NLP and Zoophilia. Oh yeah. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They have completely removed the new definition I provided and have replaced it with nonsense like

The Western model of age-similar homosexual relations is seen by researchers as a departure from this norm since it has rarely appeared as a pattern in other times and places. Unlike the other models, it ‘assumes that homosexuality is not merely a behavior, but something innate to a person’s real being.’[2] In this sense, such cultures do not see the practice of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model, but instead popularly conflate it with the child sexual abuse model.

It is impossible to edit against such a crowd. At least before I had the support of two people, now both have been blocked. What they have written is nonsense.

Given you've decided to continue your off-wiki campaign against FT2 at WR and now brought it back on-wiki, I've blocked you indefinitely. The level of posting you've made about FT2 is shocking, it really is. Given that your original account was blocked indefinitely for exactly the same thing (and still remains blocked), you obviously haven't learnt your lesson. You were asked to step back and you didn't, so blocking is the only thing left to be done - users which harass other editors aren't welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Look I happen to be an expert on at least part of this subject, and you are blocking, Ryan. What exactly is your level of expertise here? I am 'campaigning' against FT2 because he has blocked another editor who in my view was pretty good, at least here (I can't speak for what he has done elsewhere).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 29th June 2008, 5:43pm

[SqueakBox]

Please. Could we all remember that we are dealing with a website whose Deputy Director is a known public advocate of pro-pedophilia positions? What do you all expect?

A fish rots from the head down.

My candidacy for the Board of Trustees was based on exposing these problems and sweeping them out of the system. I came in last place out of 15 candidates.

Message received?

Greg

You came last, eh? sigh. You got my vote. And yes it is indeed well known that EM has been doing just the same as the 101 PPA socks who wikipedia fail to address. This may come out one day, decent thinking people do not advocate pedophilia

Personal attacks on FT2
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Your attacks on FT2 somehow assuming his actions are caused by his support of pedophiles are completely over the line please somehow edit your entries or I would block you. FT2 does not deserve such assertions. Blocking socks used to circumvent blocks and bans are routine duty of administrators and checkusers. If you think somebody was incorrectly blocked on the first place then you should argue his or her unblocking. Sockpuppeting and uncivility would not only harm those goals Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis"

I was aware this editor was probably a sock of Headley down. But I never really understood why he was banned in the first place, except for his excellent work on NLP-related subjects (FT's specialism) and on Zoophilia, of course. His editing on both was exceptional except, of course, contrary to received views (FT2's) on the subject.

As it happened I have been through many of Headleydown's edits, and through his sockpuppets. I don't agree with the sockpuppeting but he was a good editor on many subjects. I still don't fully understand why he was banned in the first place, except for the fact he was quite persistent in his objective approach to pseudoscience (specifically NLP which as we know is one of FT2's pet subjects, to Zoophilia, enough said, and now to paedophilia. I was asked by User:Thatcher to help out with the pederasty stuff and you now make my job impossible. I trust Phdart's editing, he has been supporting me in cleaning up that article. And if Alex persists in trying to block me this is going to bo NUCLEAR in a way that you cannot believe. Really. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]] FT2 you say "Headley is basically tricky to spot, but often unmistakable when experienced. " That's because he is deeply opposed to the views you hold on NLP and Zoophilia. Oh yeah. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They have completely removed the new definition I provided and have replaced it with nonsense like

The Western model of age-similar homosexual relations is seen by researchers as a departure from this norm since it has rarely appeared as a pattern in other times and places. Unlike the other models, it ‘assumes that homosexuality is not merely a behavior, but something innate to a person’s real being.’[2] In this sense, such cultures do not see the practice of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model, but instead popularly conflate it with the child sexual abuse model.

It is impossible to edit against such a crowd. At least before I had the support of two people, now both have been blocked. What they have written is nonsense.

Given you've decided to continue your off-wiki campaign against FT2 at WR and now brought it back on-wiki, I've blocked you indefinitely. The level of posting you've made about FT2 is shocking, it really is. Given that your original account was blocked indefinitely for exactly the same thing (and still remains blocked), you obviously haven't learnt your lesson. You were asked to step back and you didn't, so blocking is the only thing left to be done - users which harass other editors aren't welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Look I happen to be an expert on at least part of this subject, and you are blocking, Ryan. What exactly is your level of expertise here? I am 'campaigning' against FT2 because he has blocked another editor who in my view was pretty good, at least here (I can't speak for what he has done elsewhere).

Ryan has experience in mediating the pedophile article disputes.

[Yehudi]

My candidacy for the Board of Trustees was based on exposing these problems and sweeping them out of the system. I came in last place out of 15 candidates.

Message received?

So you only lost becasuse all the paedophiles and pro-paedophiles voted against you?

[Peter Damian]

As you may have seen, I have now been blocked, for making the comments I made on THIS thread. Utterly unbelievable.

[prospero]

Here's a good talk quote:

I have re-written the introduction to conform with standard dictionary definitions, i.e. an explicitly sexual practice involving post-adolescent males and adolescent boys. Under this definition, actually much of the article can now be deleted, since the Greek practices do not conform to the modern definition.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples

Not a single man sexing up anyone before puberty.


You can thank NAMBLA and Chris Hansen for confusing people of what is a pre and what is post puberty.


I also now after reading it will never think the same way about Oscar Wilde references on Uncyclopedia.

This is interesting. According to Thatcher, the only result coming back is that the editor may be HeadleyDown, but its not conclusive at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222455553

Actually, judging by the way FT2 has conflated the huge range of global IPs on the HeadleyDown article, a wide range of people in the could world simultaneously be HeadleyDown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Does the editor in question seem to be "a reincarnator who specializes in massive sneaky pov vandalism with multiple sock/meatpuppets (around 50 - 80 over some 3 years, often 3 - 10 at a time on multiple articles" ???

It just looks like more of FT2's "catch anything that I don't like" sort of strategies. Anyone who doesn't like NLP, zoophilia, pedophilia etc - beware.

Docknell

A statement from Thatcher:

In response to certain comments made off-wiki, I never said the identification of Phdarts as HeadleyDown was inconclusive, I said I lacked the knowledge to make an informed comment. The reasons one leaves in the CU logs do not always match up to reality: if I log as check as "Grawp suspect" and it turns out to be someone else, there is no way to update the log to reflect that. I have checked Phdarts myself, as part of an RFCU on Burrburr, but I did not recognize the IPs and there are no other accounts blocked as sockpuppets on his IPs within the timeframe covered by the data. Based on FT2's email, I also agree Phdarts is a reincarnation of HeadleyDown. Thatcher 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)