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]

Answering some of Larry’s questions:

# On the identity of pedophile (called 'SPA' on Wikipedia) editors.
## A look at an older version of the 'Pedophile Article Watch' page is a hoot, as nearly all of the members have since been banned as SPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=263998150
## AllStarEcho, identified in Wikisposure is still editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r%3AAllstarecho ,
## Tyciol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tyciol was blocked in April 2010, after I privately emailed Ryan Postlethwaite. Note it takes a banned user such as myself to force this, Wikipedia has no 'self regulating' mechanism it seems. But Tyciol is still unblocked on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...ibutions/Tyciol where he involved in work on many dubious images, and even more astonishing on Simple Wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C...ibutions/Tyciol where many younger users congregate. This edit http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...ev&oldid=482934 , though old, is quite worrying.
## Haiduc ('the rebel') is famous here on Wikipedia Review, not blocked until Feb 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Haiduc Feb 2010,
## Jonathan King, yes, that Jonathan King, often edits his own article on Wikipedia, see this discussion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...his_own_article June 2009 , I have a list of his sockpuppets, such as user:Oopsie Poopsie.

See also Phdarts on talk page PEd http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218611523 June 2008. Mention Wikipi-tan.

## Another Solipsist is an interesting one, blocked in June 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...notherSolipsist , interesting as he was involved in recruiting minors into adminship roles, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221886627 , and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._adminship/Ryan , where he supports the candidacy of a 13 year old admin. “Would anyone vote for anyone that couldn't read? I certainly wouldn't, regardless of the candidate's age. Despite the implications of your analogy, no one's arguing that you should vote for a child by virtue of their being a child -- that's ageism, too. But if you don't vote for a five year old, it should be because they can't read [etc.], not simply because they're five. The point is to judge others as individuals, not members of a group. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)”. I.e arguing , in a way that is creepily familiar, that you can’t define maturity by age, and that if someone is ready for being a Wikipedia administrator, it is OK for them to be a Wikipedia administrator. As usual, I was the one who was blocked for complaining about this.

# Regarding their agenda: as the Fox article correctly says, internet chat boards are used to plan ways of putting across their point of view. The agenda consists of a series of arguments aimed at ‘normalising’ pedophilia which are mostly versions of the fallacies of definition and equivocation. For example they rely on the academic definition of 'pedophilia', meaning the proclivity but not the practice, to argue that pedophiles do not harm children. They argue that pedophilia is not 'abusive', again arguing from a different meaning of 'abusive'. They prefer the term 'pederasty' to 'pedophilia'. See the many articles on the varieties of pederasty.

# On administrator tolerance of their activity. There is at least one case where, as this conversation makes clear, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643 (June 2008) where it is clear that a group of SPA’s had access to a sympathetic administrator who was able to block an ‘SPA unfriendly’ account [link omitted as it incriminates the admin involved] . By and large I don’t think there is any cabal. The problem (as DogBiscuit clearly explains above) is that where the principles of ‘Assume Good Faith’ and of preventing SPA POV come into conflict, AGF is always given priority. Also the principle of ‘anyone can edit'.

-----------------------
[edit]

I forgot this. Also, can anyone find the link to a long discussion on the WMF forum about whether pedophiles should be banned on the spot?

Apologies if this is already well-known or was mentioned here before, but I'm just noticing it for the first time.

Mike Godwin wrote in August 2009 about how he would jump to the defense of any WMF'er who was accused of pedophilia.

Hi, this is Mike Godwin, and I am the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. I want to gently suggest that accusations about pedophilia may easily be taken as defamatory and actionable in court. Although I would not bring such an action on behalf of the Foundation, I would certainly cooperate with any individual at the Foundation who believed that unfounded accusations damaged his or her reputation. I can assure you that there is no philosophical disposition at the Foundation generally to promote child sexual abuse, and no one here has ever been charged (much less convicted) of any such crimes. Please be aware that some individuals here (and elsewhere on the project) would take damage to their reputations very seriously, and it is our policy here to help our staff members in any efforts they make to protect or repair their reputations.[[User:MGodwin|MikeGodwin]] ([[User talk:MGodwin|talk]]) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's worth noting, but no WMF'er has actually taken action against any of these potentially "defamatory and actionable" claims about pedophilia and the WMF, probably largely because they realize what an embarrassing trove of child-exploitative evidence any defendant would have to bear witness against the plaintiff.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 28th June 2010, 8:29pm

[Kelly Martin]

The problem (as DogBiscuit clearly explains above) is that where the principles of ‘Assume Good Faith’ and of preventing SPA POV come into conflict, AGF is always given priority. Also the principle of ‘anyone can edit'.

This is only true if the point of view being forwarded is not incompatible with Wikipedia's house point of view. For example, note the large number of single-purpose accounts that have been blocked for espousing positions on anthropogenic global warming or on intelligent design which are incompatible with Wikipedia's editorial policy on these issues. Accounts (single-purpose or otherwise) used to forward "unapproved" points of view are aggressively suppressed.

If a single-purpose account is not suppressed, it is reasonable to conclude from that that Wikipedia's editorial policy includes at least tolerance, if not active acceptance, of the point of view being forwarded by that single-purpose account.