QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 8th February 2010, 10:55am)
While we're on the subject, until quite recently the Wikipedia article for
Boy (T-H-L-K-D)was a disaster, featuring a
nude artwork section and a
BDSM role-play section, both of which were removed on January 25, 2010 by an anonymous IP (thanks to whoever did that!). The article still features two photos of boys in various states of undress...which is perhaps two too many?
Quite possibly.
Basically what happens is that perverts insert content and people are scared to remove it.
The BDSM stuff went in in 2006
here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43292196by a user who also graced the peedia with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60445517http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=22270209http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=39389240http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=22268526The latter edit was reverted several times, including by a self-desribed 12-year-old peedian who left a message on his talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastifex#Hairbrush:"Hello! I once again removed the paragraph on child spanking and erotic spanking that was put in the hairbrush article. The paragraph has nothing to do with brushing hair and seem quite ridiculous in the article and was longer than the brushing article itself! If you would like to add a short sentence about spanking then please do so, but the entire, detailed text belongs in the "Spanking" article. Thank you!"
Prompting the further follow-up "Here's what this is really about: When I'm sitting at the computer with my 9 year old daughter and she asks a perfectly innocent question like "Daddy, what's the red mouse button on my ThinkPad called?" or "Why are some rulers in inches and some in centimeters?", shouldn't we be able to look it up on Wikipedia without throwing obscene material in her face?" by another user
who then added
"Fastifex, I was crying last night after I saw what you've been doing to the Hairbrush article. Me, a grown man. Crying.
You know why? Sweet Loulou. She's 12, Fastifex. 12.
Like my daughter, she probably likes to brush her hair. With a hairbrush. You know, those things that are made for brushing hair? She probably started contributing to the hairbrush article because of that interest.
Do you think when she was younger she imagined, "When I am 12, I'm going to be defending an encyclopedia article on hairbrushes against sado-erotic spam." I guess they grow up fast these days.
And AnnH. She is being so nice, trying to reason with you, asking why you continue to add this material to the hairbrush article, asking you if it would be OK to please tone it down a bit.
I beg you, sir. Search your heart. Somewhere in there, isn't there a place where you can see that what you are doing is wrong?"
he got worse, perverting 'yard stick', 'wooden spoon', 'sneaker', 'slipper', 'willow', 'belt', 'barrel', 'rope' and many more.
sample text:
"The term 'bull's eye' was used when [the whip] hit the tender areas between the buttocks. Naughty boys were ordered to bend over on the spot, presenting their posterior to be lashed with it for such minor offences as taking too long to get in or out of the bath tub, boys who would then still wet and stark naked."
He was also responsible for adding this naked boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amor_Victorious.jpgthe naked Indian boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62770088the boy scouts, and others
Sandel added this naked boy fwiw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=84102452Fastifex eventually left, I daresay other evidence of his perversion lingers on.
Edit: he may not have left, looks like he is now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arcarius - they share an interest in pictures of naked near-naked boys, fetishism, and Roman Catholicism, Arcarius has added back half-naked boys to the boy article on numerous occasions when it appeared as if they were gone.