EXCLUSIVE: Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia - FOXNews Options Rating

[Newsfeed]

FOXNews

Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/...e-on-wikipedia/

[Peter Damian]

Stillwaterising has come in for much criticism at WR but he is saying the right thing here, isn't he?

I guess I don't see how our current policies are working. Case in point: Futanari. The current revision (here) displays an image that has been up since June 21. The image passed a Deletion Review on Commons (fail). I twice tried to remove the image (fail). I went to AN/I to request that the users be blocked and the page be full protected (fail). I've actually been warned to not remove the image again or face a block (fail).I also reported the image to infowikimedia.org yesterday, no reply (fail). I even reported this to ArbCom - no action taken (fail). Finally, I've reported the image to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children yesterday, however I do not expect quick action from them. Bashing Fox News is not helpful. They did not cause this problem, and vehement denials will not solve this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those are fails, they are all good. This is more clear cut than the Virgin Killer farrago, and the image is clearly not problematic. If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again. This is not a case in point, but an example of the policy working. Verbal chat 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons:Category:Erotic activities involving children "all good" too? How is it a example of policy working for you to threaten me here for something I'm not doing? Isn't this just an example of and admin not following existing policies like WP:Harassment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in clicking that link and I have no interest in the commons. Your "example" is irrelevant as it does not depict "child porn" in a legal sense or the Fox sense. It is irrelevant. As I said on ANI, you are continuing to attempt to induce a chilling effect with your ill-founded claims and canvass them. You've stated your opinion, you've reported the picture. No action has been taken. Learn from that. Verbal chat 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 27th June 2010, 10:22am

[carbuncle]

Stillwaterising has come in for much criticism at WR but he is saying the right thing here, isn't he?

I guess I don't see how our current policies are working. Case in point: Futanari. The current revision (here) displays an image that has been up since June 21. The image passed a Deletion Review on Commons (fail). I twice tried to remove the image (fail). I went to AN/I to request that the users be blocked and the page be full protected (fail). I've actually been warned to not remove the image again or face a block (fail).I also reported the image to infowikimedia.org yesterday, no reply (fail). I even reported this to ArbCom - no action taken (fail). Finally, I've reported the image to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children yesterday, however I do not expect quick action from them. Bashing Fox News is not helpful. They did not cause this problem, and vehement denials will not solve this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those are fails, they are all good. This is more clear cut than the Virgin Killer farrago, and the image is clearly not problematic. If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again. This is not a case in point, but an example of the policy working. Verbal chat 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons:Category:Erotic activities involving children "all good" too? How is it a example of policy working for you to threaten me here for something I'm not doing? Isn't this just an example of and admin not following existing policies like WP:Harassment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in clicking that link and I have no interest in the commons. Your "example" is irrelevant as it does not depict "child porn" in a legal sense or the Fox sense. It is irrelevant. As I said on ANI, you are continuing to attempt to induce a chilling effect with your ill-founded claims and canvass them. You've stated your opinion, you've reported the picture. No action has been taken. Learn from that. Verbal chat 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report

Stillwaterising occasionally says something that seems quite reasonable and with which I might agree were it not for the other things he says. If this isn't a deliberate attempt to subvert any real reform around the area of questionable pornographic images on WP and Commons, it might as well be. Stillwaterising argues that a manga-style illustration of hermaphroditic figures is child porn in part because "The character on the right has long hair suggesting maturity". Future attempts to deal with the issues underlying similar concerns will invariably be related to this - for example, Niabot, the creator of this image is one of the opponents of the WMF study of objectionable content (WR discussion of that study starts here)...