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

[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

[HRIP7]

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

Agreed.

[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)...

[Moulton]

Case 1: Impostor B claims to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.
Case 2: A is B claiming to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.

In what way would these be distinguishable?

Short of the getting the actor (or actors) who voice the remarks of A and B in the same room in meat-space, I don't know of any reliable way of distinguishing the two cases.

If you had enough commentary from the two characters, you might be able to do some kind of statistical analysis (e.g. "fingerprint") of their idiosyncratic writing styles to assign probabilities to the two cases, but that's a lot of (highly technical) work. Voiceprints of spoken remarks and videos showing uncostumed faces would be much better evidence.

"Be ye not bamboozled." --The Big Bamboozler

[CharlotteWebb]

Case 1: Impostor B claims to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.
Case 2: A is B claiming to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.

In what way would these be distinguishable?

Short of the getting the actor (or actors) who voice the remarks of A and B in the same room in meat-space, I don't know of any reliable way of distinguishing the two cases.

Thanks, that's what I figured.

Otherwise if A claims to be B and B claims to be A you can establish that they are the same person (or at least are actively conspiring together against you).

Game theory, gotta love it.

[Peter Damian]

You've missed the real gem - "Almost every other social networking site has taken steps to clean up their sites, except for Wikipedia"....Wikipedia's a social networking site ? I though we were here to write articles =D Claritas § 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report

False.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

To him the important thing is be some kind of "sex expert" so that he can engage in discussion. The discussion is what is important to him. He has learned to say many moderate things to keep himself in the thick of it. It is not an accident that he favors a detailed case by case analysis and categorization. He has learned how to get Wikipedia to feed his pathology.

[Somey]

To him the important thing is be some kind of "sex expert" so that he can engage in discussion. The discussion is what is important to him. He has learned to say many moderate things to keep himself in the thick of it. It is not an accident that he favors a detailed case by case analysis and categorization. He has learned how to get Wikipedia to feed his pathology.

Right, but putting his underlying motives aside for the moment, it's impossible to entertain the notion that the person who uploaded the Futanari image did so in a "good faith" attempt to educate people about a significant aspect of Japanese culture. (Not leastwise because it's not a significant aspect of Japanese culture.) And it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that the two naked she-male characters are supposed to be adolescents, aside from the fact that they don't look all that human to start with. The dismissive arguments against what he's saying, especially the "it's irrelevant" comments, remind me more of User:JoshuaZ than of anyone who might have a legitimate objection to deleting these images on anti-censorship grounds...

I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept that Stillwaterising is both strongly pro-adult-porn and strongly anti-child-porn, because my own views on the subject are somewhat similar, and I tend to think it's not an especially uncommon set of views to hold (though I'm not saying adult porn is "healthy" or should be more readily available to people, mind you).

Either way, the real problem he's up against here is that there are a lot of WP'ers who really, really, really dig those sexually-twisted Japanese porn-manga drawings, and like all WP'ers they don't like being thwarted. There's also a non-negligible possibility that someone's using the porn-manga material as a "wedge strategy," to eventually get similarly-explicit photorealistic material uploaded and kept - but IMO most people don't think that far in advance.

[Jon Awbrey]

He has learned how to get Wikipedia to feed his pathology.

There's Nobody But Audreys In That Shop —



Jon

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Right, but putting his underlying motives aside for the moment, it's impossible to entertain the notion that the person who uploaded the Futanari image did so in a "good faith" attempt to educate people about a significant aspect of Japanese culture. (Not leastwise because it's not a significant aspect of Japanese culture.)

Yah, interesting point.

Is it Japanese culture, pornography culture or underground comic culture? We all tend to "play football" with national teams if it suits our prejudices, but why? The actions of a tiny few within another nation can hardly be ascribed to an entire nation, most of whom might well be appalled by them.

It is like saying "pedophilia is part of Belgian culture" because of fairly recent events there (false), pedophilia is part of the culture of Roman Catholic or Scout leader priesthood (possible true) ... do all Wikipedians see the hard core amateur pornography the part of Wikipedian culture which it has become?

Certain cultures are entirely transnational bearing little to no connection to their host cultures and it could be argued that they are entirely parasitical ... which in the body, they are not off it. Are the Wiki-pornographers not that and should they not be dealt with as that?

I am still forced to see it all as some kind of inappropriate and (albeit perhaps fairly mildly) abusive sexual exhibitionism ... The Joy of Corruption rather than The Joy of Sex. The Joy of Sex is worth mentioning in this context as pretty much the turning point in popular publishing as its "illustrations and text are titillating as well as illustrative, in contrast to the bland, clinical style of earlier books about sex".

Much of the counter-argument to the unfettered sexualisation of an encyclopedia targeting children and educational facilities is that, perhaps, if the topics have to be covered and illustrated, they should return to that " bland, clinical" style. I'd wonder if the division between the various protagonists as Pre-JOS and Post-JOS.

[Peter Damian]

Wales removed the discussion immediately after this post.

Wnt, you provided a link to a page on Wikisposure listing alleged or suspected pedophilia POV-pushers with a statement implying that other than those listed as "currently unblocked", the others are "banned" on Wikipedia. This is generally not the case - those users are indef blocked by Arbcom, but not explicitly banned. Take for example User:Tyciol, who was blocked on 15 April of this year. Despite this, Tyciol continues to edit on Wikimedia Commons, where their most recent edit was to a picture of children bathing just about a week ago. This suggests to me that perhaps these types of blocks would be more properly applied at the WMF level, or at least as a global project block or ban. Thanks for bringing this to light. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=370452588

It's more amusing in context as Carbuncle includes the picture.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 27th June 2010, 6:47pm

[Moulton]

Game theory, gotta love it.

Philosopher-Logician Raymond Smullyan created a genre of puzzles (called Knights and Knaves) in which the objective was to figure out which of the characters were Knights (who always told the truth) and which were Knaves (who always lied). Once you've done a few dozen such puzzles from his collection, you begin to understand how to think through these confusing scenarios.

[Somey]

Is it Japanese culture, pornography culture or underground comic culture? We all tend to "play football" with national teams if it suits our prejudices, but why? The actions of a tiny few within another nation can hardly be ascribed to an entire nation, most of whom might well be appalled by them.

It's all three, and to some extent it can be ascribed to "Japan" because almost all of it originally comes from there. But I should be more specific as to what I mean: Manga drawings are an important part of Japanese culture; pornogaphic manga is a fairly significant subgenre of manga, but hardly the most significant, not even close. Whereas, manga drawings of pre-operative transsexual adolescents (doing whatever it is such people would do if they existed) can only be deemed an insignificant, and "fringey," part of both the manga genre and of Japanese culture overall. To suggest otherwise would be a fairly serious insult to the Japanese, whose culture is quite rich and fascinating even if you don't include the sexually perverted aspects of it. (And as always, putting aside any biases or prejudices one might have against them due to what they did in the first half of the 20th Century.)

Now, it may be that some people want to draw attention to these kinds of drawings as a means of embarrassing the Japanese for allowing such things to be published (though I obviously have no idea as to the provenance of the drawing in question). But that seems extremely unlikely compared to the idea that the uploaders are simply motivated by their desire to promote the genre (and its various subgenres) to titillate themselves, if not for commercial purposes.

(IMO!)

[thekohser]

Wikipedia Squeakbox has always come across as one of the good guys, from what I've seen.

No, he's one of those "Wipe Jimbo's Talk Page" guys -- I think he's gotten several of my accounts blocked before. He's a True Believer. So, he's one of the few Wikipedians opposed to pedophilia. Doesn't make him a saint.

I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused by mentioning "his" alias here, without researching a pro-pedophilia site more carefully to learn that another person on the Internet stole "his" alias.

[SB_Johnny]

Wales removed the discussion immediately after this post.

Wnt, you provided a link to a page on Wikisposure listing alleged or suspected pedophilia POV-pushers with a statement implying that other than those listed as "currently unblocked", the others are "banned" on Wikipedia. This is generally not the case - those users are indef blocked by Arbcom, but not explicitly banned. Take for example User:Tyciol, who was blocked on 15 April of this year. Despite this, Tyciol continues to edit on Wikimedia Commons, where their most recent edit was to a picture of children bathing just about a week ago. This suggests to me that perhaps these types of blocks would be more properly applied at the WMF level, or at least as a global project block or ban. Thanks for bringing this to light. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=370452588

It's more amusing in context as Carbuncle includes the picture.

I'm very tempted to actually post the diff with that on his page, but I'm not sure he's willing or able to do anything on "the WMF level". Aside from banning Greg, of course.

[HRIP7]

Right, but putting his underlying motives aside for the moment, it's impossible to entertain the notion that the person who uploaded the Futanari image did so in a "good faith" attempt to educate people about a significant aspect of Japanese culture. (Not leastwise because it's not a significant aspect of Japanese culture.)

Yah, interesting point.

Is it Japanese culture, pornography culture or underground comic culture? We all tend to "play football" with national teams if it suits our prejudices, but why? The actions of a tiny few within another nation can hardly be ascribed to an entire nation, most of whom might well be appalled by them.

It is like saying "pedophilia is part of Belgian culture" because of fairly recent events there (false), pedophilia is part of the culture of Roman Catholic or Scout leader priesthood (possible true) ... do all Wikipedians see the hard core amateur pornography the part of Wikipedian culture which it has become?

Certain cultures are entirely transnational bearing little to no connection to their host cultures and it could be argued that they are entirely parasitical ... which in the body, they are not off it. Are the Wiki-pornographers not that and should they not be dealt with as that?

I am still forced to see it all as some kind of inappropriate and (albeit perhaps fairly mildly) abusive sexual exhibitionism ... The Joy of Corruption rather than The Joy of Sex. The Joy of Sex is worth mentioning in this context as pretty much the turning point in popular publishing as its "illustrations and text are titillating as well as illustrative, in contrast to the bland, clinical style of earlier books about sex".

Much of the counter-argument to the unfettered sexualisation of an encyclopedia targeting children and educational facilities is that, perhaps, if the topics have to be covered and illustrated, they should return to that " bland, clinical" style. I'd wonder if the division between the various protagonists as Pre-JOS and Post-JOS.

I think the "Joy of Sex" style of illustration, or that of more recent works in that genre, is fine. But Wikipedia often goes way beyond that. I'd be surprised if the goatse image, that Autofellatio photograph or even the futanari image, all presently (or formerly) hosted on Wikipedia, would ever make it into a decently published book.

That's where WP:NOTCENSORED really screws things up. Why should Wikipedia have illustrations that no "reliable source" would ever print? Just because Wikipedia's demographic is skewed in favor of single young males who are still into this stuff? Per Wikipedia's own policies, the likes and preferences of the editor community are immaterial in establishing due weight, and its coverage should reflect the approach of published sources.

Now, it may be that some people want to draw attention to these kinds of drawings as a means of embarrassing the Japanese for allowing such things to be published (though I obviously have no idea as to the provenance of the drawing in question). But that seems extremely unlikely compared to the idea that the uploaders are simply motivated by their desire to promote the genre (and its various subgenres) to titillate themselves, if not for commercial purposes.

(IMO!)

The image was drawn by Niabot (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who is (why am I not surprised) German. It's his interpretation of the style of Futanari manga.

He nominated the image for featured image in Commons.

[EricBarbour]

So, just to clarify, it was ... Erik 'The Child' Moellester? And another seriously dubious decision of Team Jimmy Wales to hire the guy.

Hm, good idea. We could call Moeller "The Child" henceforth, as an arcane back-reference.
He'll never figure out why people are calling him that.

The image was drawn by Niabot (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who is (why am I not surprised) German. It's his interpretation of the style of Futanari manga.
He nominated the image for featured image in Commons.

Unfortunately, futa art is very popular. You can find thousands of similar manga-style cartoons on sites like Deviant Art or Hentai Foundry, and boards like 4chan host thousands more. Those sites don't do a very good job of checking for a new user's age, either.

(Hey, Wikipedia! There's an "excuse" for you! Just tell Fox News that you don't believe in age checks for the dick-girl porn, because nobody else does it! )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 28th June 2010, 12:50am

[Stillwaterising]

I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept that Stillwaterising is both strongly pro-adult-porn and strongly anti-child-porn, because my own views on the subject are somewhat similar, and I tend to think it's not an especially uncommon set of views to hold (though I'm not saying adult porn is "healthy" or should be more readily available to people, mind you).

My views have changed in the last six months and I can say I'm now against porn, especially the commercialized kind, but at the same time accepting of it. I think there's value in articles about porn on Wikipedia, but I have never advocated nor supported actual explicit images on Wikimedia projects.

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

Thank you Peter. :-)

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising: Mon 28th June 2010, 1:31pm

[HRIP7]

The image was drawn by Niabot (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who is (why am I not surprised) German. It's his interpretation of the style of Futanari manga.
He nominated the image for featured image in Commons.

Unfortunately, futa art is very popular. You can find thousands of similar manga-style cartoons on sites like Deviant Art or Hentai Foundry, and boards like 4chan host thousands more. Those sites don't do a very good job of checking for a new user's age, either.

(Hey, Wikipedia! There's an "excuse" for you! Just tell Fox News that you don't believe in age checks for the dick-girl porn, because nobody else does it! )

Thanks. Well, having had a look at the deviantArt (T-H-L-K-D) site (11 million members?), and gone through its "age registration process", I can see that Wikimedia has indeed as much in common with those sites as it has with an educational project.

Somehow, some recent cultural developments seem to have passed me by. Perhaps I am just getting too old for this shit.

[Larry Sanger]

... So, he's one of the few Wikipedians opposed to pedophilia. Doesn't make him a saint.

Jimmy Wales claimed that the FoxNews.com article was lies from top to bottom. One of the things the article implies (if not states) is that Wikipedians are tolerant of pedophilia editors in their midst. You seem to agree with the article on this.

But there was a purge of pedophile editors in 2008, right? And there is somewhere (where?) a page which seems to make it quite clear that pedophilia propaganda will not be tolerated. You say that he's one of the few who are opposed. Well, what would be relatively persuasive to me is a list of prominent admins who have come out in some reasonably clear way in favor of tolerance of pedophile editors.

I think what is necessary to specify if this conversation is to be at all clear is what is meant by "pedophile editors" (or whatever you want to call them), what sorts of things, generally, they do, and why those things are so outrageous. For example, would the following be outrageous for an article to state? It is true that there is a movement in favor of "equal rights for pedophiles." Obviously I don't know much about it, but I know it exists. It's not outrageous to say so, is it? I think to the contrary that it's rather important to state, if it's true. This is not a problem we want to sweep under the carpet. What are a few examples of claims made in WP articles, either previously or even now, that a serious encyclopedia should not permit?

I am obviously sympathetic to keeping Wikipedia free of both pedophile creeps (and, probably, felons of all sorts as well), and it is very disturbing that they can use Wikipedia as a platform to try to normalize their behavior (or their desires). But this does not answer the questions I was just asking about.