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

Looks like they're redirecting all traffic from WP to a special page that reads:



The link in question:

http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Campaign

Some on the administrators notebook have been agitating lately to get PJ to be declared an "attack site" so all links to it can be suppressed (whether or not they redirect them). However, the leading advocate of this over there, Fourdee, is presently temporarily blocked for vandalizing another user's user page (User El_C has pictures of various commie revolutionaries / dictators / freedom fighters / mass murderers [depending on your own ideological standpoint] that Fourdee kept edit-warring to try to insert captions talking about how evil they are, against the wishes of the user himself who apparently supports those guys).

This is a bit reminiscent of the edit wars over Cognition's user page.

What's up with that H? It looks like the guy made some ordinary run of the mill (if pretentious) comments about Pythagoras and Socrates and SlimVirgin and JoshuaZ just lost it.

There were two LaRouche-related links in that user page as well (diff) so that's why SlimVirgin & Co. freaked out.
The edit summary on the edit before that said, "Attempt to violate ArbCom ruling" - the ArbCom ruling they're thinking of is:


(that was in the Remedies section, the rulings are below)



That one's pretty weak, though. Linking to LaRouche on your userpage is not original research.



A userpage isn't an article.

I think that what Perverted Justice is doing is within there rights and Wikipedia's response to it (the removal of all links to Perverted Justice) is just an immature coverup. It is not up to Wikipedia administrators to censor Perverted Justice's website just because it makes claims that make Wikipedia uncomfortable. People should be free to make up their own minds as to the situation.

Censorship and stiffling free speech is the wrong solution.

So that is what that scrollie-thingie is for. Still why the overkill? I know it is more work to precision edit than revert but hey even the Newspeak engineers of Ingsoc took the trouble. Removing innocuous material emphasizes the book burning nature of their work.

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=33607314

It's against Wikipedia rules for someone to praise a politician on their user page??

While Dtobias's staement was of itself interesting none of you seem to have grasped why Perverted-Justice is doing this. The answer is that its Director of Operations Xavier Von Erk has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XavierVE after 2 and a half years of editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XavierVE, see the block log here.
His usert alk page was then wiped clean
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
and then salted. Of course the silly vandal persdopnal attack against him wasnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=46139618
In a letter to an admin thta was put on the talk page before that went he said he didnt like the wikipedia article on Perverted-Justice because it made the organisation lokm bad while topping the list of Google seraches for this term.

He was blocked, and that's probably why he set up the redirect, and he is trying to agitate WP into removing the links, thereby causing bad press, etc. WP very nearly removed the links and I am hoping they do, just for the public relations fiasco that will develop.

Perverted Justice types are basically like Ammorow.

All the sex offender laws are sexist against men.

All the age of consent laws are like if a gang of 14 year olds carrying guns goes and drugs, ties up, and sodom-style rapes a 25-year old that the 25 year old somehow committed statutory rape and the 14 year olds are innocent.

Perverted Justice deserves to be listed on badsites.

Wikipeida and it's admin priests are perverted sense of truth and what is right.

The more reason that wikipedia must be diminished and reduced.

Hola, I'm Xavier, one of the three administrators of Perverted-Justice and our associated sites.

I saw this thread in our stat-tracker and figured I'd make a post detailing why we have attacked Wikipedia over the last... oh, year and a half. Maybe three people will be interested in it. Maybe not.

I started out having to edit Wikipedia (Key word: having) due to someone over there making an article on our organization. Of course, people who then don't like our organization went over to put in a bunch of POV-pushing nonsense a few months later. Being a reader of Wikipedia and someone who had nothing but good impressions of the foundation, I figured regular Wikipedian editors would come along and moderate the dispute so I wouldn't have to bother editing over there anymore. Two and a half years later, I finally got myself banned rather than deal with the morass of stupidity that inhabits that place.

Our attacks on Wikipedia started when a creepy guy named Rookiee started editing all sorts of pedophile nonsense into our organizational page. Checking out his user-page was pretty shocking, as it was one long manifesto about how AWESOME being a pedophile was, links to his huge network of websites, his podcast, you name it. Of course, I also noticed on his talk page that he was banned and unbanned over smearing and libeling Justin Berry on the project itself. After that, we created an article excoriating this fat sack of crap (We stick to professional terms only). However, while doing so, we ran across all the other pedophiles editing Wikipedia. From there, we started our CSO project dealing with companies that refuse to remove pedophiles from their organization when they're pointed out to said company.

For a while, the complaints actually seemed to make a difference. Even though I had no idea who he was at the time, Jimbo Wales popped up in my IM once and we had a discussion about it. Then he and Bauder over time ended up banning a lot of the more overt pedophiles. However, on BoyChat.org, a pedophile hang-out, one of the more savvy Pedophilipedians noted that as long as you didn't say anything about being a pedophile ON Wikipedia, they wouldn't ban you. Even if you have years of history on visions of alice, or kidzlandonline or boychat or annabelleigh or (Yeah, there's a lot of pedophile organizations), it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't care. Soon, you'd see all the usual content edited into the pro-pedophilia article, the anti-pedophilia article, and they eventually succeeded in having enough sway in AfD votes that you could tell they regrouped and exploited the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In July, I threw my hands up in the air and blogged about my experience editing Wikipedia and how, in my eyes, it's one massive project of failure(1). Shortly after I did that (coincidentally?), I ended up being banned because I uttered the term "Tyciol is a pedophile" about five times on my talk page. You see, you are not to note bias in editors, even if that bias is the person publicly outing themselves as a pedophile on another website as... well, Tyciol. Same name, same guy. I guess I was supposed to stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la la" when dealing with this person's edits. Noting that he was a pedophile when reverting a long pedophile rant of his = DEATH.

For noting that a pedophile activist is well, a pedophile activist, I got an endless stream of namby-pamby "oh don't do that" messages on my talk page. Of course, any rule stating that you can't note obvious bias in an individual (Nobody was banned, for example, when pointing out that I'm the administrator of Perverted-Justice.com) is pretty silly to begin with.

So, long story short, we threw up a redirection page that talked about how pedophiles actively target Wikipedia to slant articles relating to pedophilia towards "their side" and how Wikipedia has no ability to check this nor has the care to check it. Of course, we linked to our Wikipedia campaign article that is linked by the OP in this thread. That got us labeled as BADSITES/ATTACKSITES!!!OMG!!! and all of our links removed due to the brouhaha on the Administrators Incident board.

Of course, the coup de grace of Wikipedia hypocrisy? Will Beback linked the same exact content on the Pedophile Article Watch page months ago. The same exact URL that resulted in all of the links to our organization being delisted... because we dared to link it when redirecting Wikipedia readers to a short write-up regarding our article on Wikipedia itself. Hypocrisy to the nth degree.

Of course, this account is probably too long for most people to bother reading, still, wanted to drop in our story of having to deal with Wikipedia and the oddball culture that infests that place. At the very least, we learned enough from the experience that we were able to start our own Wiki outing pedophile activists... which has already resulted in two arrests. Something positive came out of the experience, otherwise it was one big lesson on why the average person should regard any writeup of a "controversial" topic with a grain of salt and why K-12 education should avoid Wikipedia like the black plague of intellectual death.

Obviously, there's some great Wiki editors, I've dealt with a few really dedicated people to the project. However, their numbers are dwarfed by the POV warring that goes on in any controversial topic, making their whole existence rather moot.

Of course, Wikipedia can't 100% ensure that POV pedophiles won't come to their project and edit crap into articles, however they should at least... oh, care... when it's blatantly obvious that one is doing so, self-identifying on Wikipedia or not.

I'm interested in anything that attacks Wikipedia for a constructive reason.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review.

I agree that we are probably a bit too hysterical about paedophiles, and even that the age of consent is possibly a bit high... but come on, this post is ridiculous!

To be fair, XavierVE was not really an active editor of Wikipedia for 2 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...target=XavierVE

8 January 2005 - 13 August 2007 (2 1/2 years)
Roughly 300 edits

Or about 1 edit every 2-3 days.

That's about as inactive as they come!

Furthermore, it was clearly a role account, as all of the edits were related to Perverted-Justice (the web site), and various articles (and AFDs) relating to Paedophilia, both for and against.

Indeed, looking at the contributions I'd suggest that XavierVE probably has a second account somewhere, that is the main account. That isn't a violation of Wikipedia's rules on sock puppetry, of course, but since they've now banned XavierVE, they might get upset about the existence of a second account.

With regards to Wikipedia encouraging paedophiles, I've heard this a few times, and while there is some evidence of it, it is about as strong as the suggestion that Wikipedia is pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and so forth. There is a bias, that of pro-USA, because of the demographic, but there is no clear evidence of these other suggested types of bias. Yes, there is some bias, but there seems to be just as much bias the other way.

On the question of whether Wikipedia should ban someone purely for being a paedophile (or equally for being a nazi, white supremist, furry, or engaging in any other form of illegal activity that does not directly harm Wikipedia users - stalkers and hackers are obviously a different issue), the issue that I have is that whilst we might hate them as people, they can still contribute valuable knowledge in that area. A white supremist knows intimately about why people support holocaust denial, and a paedophile knows intimately why paedophiles do it. It is of educational benefit to allow them to contribute this knowledge. We can hate them all we like, and indeed they very much should be in jail. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't contribute knowledge. So long as they don't use Wikipedia to pick up underage boys and girls, then all is fine.

With regards to Lamont storm star's suggestion that statutory rape laws favour women, that is true of virtually every law in existence. Why is it that men outnumber women in prisons 10-1 if there is no discrimination? Are men more evil than women? I seriously doubt it. Men and women are equally as evil as each other, and it varies on the individual. Laws, or at least prosecution, favours women to a heavy extent, and always has. This is based on an archaic patriachal notion that women need to be protected, and is supported by the archaic societies whereby women had no rights. Now that women have more rights and are closer towards gender equality than ever, laws worldwide need to be updated to reflect this, and we should aim to have the same number of women in prisons as men. Of course, this needs to be done by improving the accuracy and reliability of laws and prosecutions. Women are generally better at lying than men, and more manipulative, and of course the stereotypical "damsel in distress" plea by a manipulative woman is answered by a stereotypical "knight in shining armour" by well-meaning men, who then commit a crime because a woman wants him to - thus a man goes to prison for a woman's crime.

Specifically, sexual crimes are even more greatly sexist against men than crimes in general, and also reflect the archaic patriachal societies. Whilst most rapes are committed by men against women, just as dangerous in modern society are false claims of rape by women, which in modern society is virtually impossible to prosecute - indeed it should probably have a similar level of penalty as what a rapist gets once convicted - with the same level of burden of proof. Statutory rape should not be considered to be a crime, and the sickening element of statutory rape laws is that not only is this listed as a crime, but it is furthermore listed as paedophilia. Sexual abuse of children is a serious issue, but consensual sex by 2 people, one of whom happens to be below some magical number that represents whatever the "age of consent" is in their region isn't paedophilia. Certainly there are limits, and the definite limit needs to be whether the child has undergone puberty - if they are pre-pubescent then it is always rape, if not then consent is relevant. Child sexual abuse also is perpetrated regularly by women, to a similar extent to the level that men perpetrate it, yet women are rarely prosecuted because of some strange notion that it requires a man's superior power to overpower a small child. Indeed, child abuse overall is committed far more by women than men, although this is partially due to women being more likely to spend time with children.

One needs to take all of these kinds of things in to account when considering accusations of paedophilia. It is a simple enough shock tactic to go around screaming out that someone is a paedophile, but without proof it can be nothing more than a smear campaign, and cause serious harm.

Of course, in saying all of that, Perverted-Justice does seem to have proof. Whether it therefore suggests that Wikipedia as a whole has a hidden agenda designed to encourage paedophiles is another matter entirely.

I think that there is evidence that through their policies and software they definitely support and encourage harassment and stalking, but I am not convinced that they really do anything to support paedophilia.

Since somebody from PJ is reading and writing here, I'll point out my pet peeve: Since they say they're aiming for nonprofit-organization status, then "perverted-justice.org" would be a more logical domain name for their site to be in than "perverted-justice.com", which implies that they're a commercial entity.

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that XavierVE is Von Erck who runs perverted justice.com - Looking through the history on his talk page, it certainly sounds like he came to Wikipedia to out or harrass pedophiles, get them banned (or at least to people he believes are pedophiles - I'm not sure whether this Tycoil is a pedophile). Browsing his edit history, it's obvious he dislikes pervert-justice (and I'm sure I'd dislike any website that called me a pedophile, whether I am or not) (oh, and for the record, I'm not.). There's some history in other age-sexuality articles, but I don't see any real POV pushing ... but I'm not going to spend all day digging through his history.

Despite this, Tycoil is asking for XavierVE to be unbanned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152515260
And asks the admin who blanked his talk page to restore the parting shot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152520056 which is unflattering towards Tycoil.

Interesting saga, I don't pretend to understand it all yet. But I do gather that XavierVE is Xavier Von Erck, who runs perverted justice, and edits Wikipedia only to find and out pedophiles (or whatever), and has no interest in Wikipedia beyond that, which is why he's inactive. I don't think it's a role account.

One of my many trolling tactics was to suggest this to femenists who thought that women should make up fifty percent of government. I never thought that anyone would actually belive it!

Any society which would have fifty percent of its prison population as female would have a hell of a lot wrong with it. Men are more criminal, I'm afraid...

Please don't make sexist comments.

That isn't a sexist comment. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442 etc

Reviewing my old government-approved Child Protection training manual, essential for anyone working with young people, it states that 95% of sexual abusers are male. This is based on a study by the Child Abuse Unit, at the old North London Polytechnic. I doubt much has changed in the period since that study came out some 2 decades ago.

The problem is that that says that men are imprisoned more, which is what I said.

Do you honestly believe that if you took any sample of 100 women and 100 men, you'd find that the 100 women were more kind?

I can bet that you'd find that 10 or 15 of the men and 10 or 15 of the women were quite nasty. It is roughly the same amount of each group.

Gender doesn't have anything to do with how evil, or dishonest, or bad someone is.

And seriously, suggesting that women shouldn't be in prison in the same numbers is quite a sexist statement.

It might sound like it is pro-women, is a feminist statement, but its not, because a statement like that actually devalues women, because it then implies that women need protection, that they can't look after themselves, can't do things for themselves, and in all other ways are less than men are.

That is a serious statement.

As for what Kato said, there was a report put out about 10 years ago about Foster Children, and it found that women were more likely to commit child abuse than men, but that men were more likely to be reported to police. This was a confidential study where every single child who had ever been in foster care was interviewed. It also uncovered that child sexual abuse was almost as likely to be committed by women as men. The figures were flawed because women weren't generally being reported. The study led to a massive change in how childcare centres and schools were run, as they were all encouraged to have more men working, because the fallacy that men would commit child sexual abuse was revealed by this study to be a myth, and women working in childcare centres were just as likely to commit abuse, but less likely to be caught.

You ask friends of yours, or general people you know, which of their parents was the most abusive. It'll be roughly 50/50. Some had more abusive fathers, some had more abusive mothers. Perhaps that isn't a very good study, but it gives a very good idea about the truth of it.

There is no dispute that the justice system PROSECUTES men more, but there is a significant dispute that they are actually guilty more.

I honestly believe if I took a random sample of 10000 women and 10000 men then the women would have committed significantly less crimes.



Have you done any research into this? Or is that what you would like to believe?



All it means is that women commit less crimes. That's not a value judgement, it's a fact. In the same way that significantly more men are geniuses*. It isn't sexism if it's the truth.



There is no dispute by reputable academics that men commit the vast majority of crime.

There is some evidence that women are treated more leniently when they did commit the crime. But that isn't the same thing at all.

*You will find that men and women tend to be the same on average, but to have a higher standard deviation of any particular characteristic. So more men will be highly criminal, but at the same time more will be absolute saints. More men will have extra high IQs, but conversely more men will have extra low IQs. And then there are other attributes where the means are different, such as muscle mass, height, sense of humour, social airs and graces, etc etc.

To say that men commit more criminal acts is a fact. To say that disproportionately many crimes are committed by black people is (so far as I know) a fact. However, to say that men, or black people, are more criminal is sexism or racism.

This sounds like semantic games to me. Men are more criminal. Black men especially. That doesn't mean that all men, or all black men, are criminal.

Okay, let's just study these arguments. I'm not sure how many of you have studied philosophy, so we'll just start off with something simple.

Statistical truth: Men are charged with 10 times more crimes than women.

Conclusion:

A) Men are doing the wrong thing 10 times as much as women.
OR
B) Women are getting away with doing the wrong thing 10 times as often as men.

The thing is that based on that statistic alone, you can't make either conclusion. You need to analyse behaviour, do psychological analyses, and so forth. You also need to analyse all pertinent laws, and whether there is a gender bias with regards to these laws.

It is similar with a racial analysis, such as "In the United States, African Americans are more likely to be arrested than other racial groups".

Many people say that that is because of racism, but others say that it is because they are worse people.

Incidentally, in Alice Springs about 95% of all prosecutions were against Aboriginal people, and 95% were against men. White women were almost immune to prosecution. Yet women made up 60% of the population and Aboriginals officially only made up 12%.

Those Aboriginal men must be REALLY BAD PEOPLE mustn't they?

So that therefore justifies racist positions. But the problem is that there is a pretty good chance, even without doing more research, that the law itself is discriminatory.

I think it's uncontraversial that justice systems discriminate against the poor. And I'll bet Aboriginies (sp?) are far poorer than white people in Alice Springs, on average. That probably makes up a huge part of it - racial crime statistics are worthless without accounting for economic status. Justice in western democracies is open to all, just like the Ritz Hotel.

But the research has been done! You can argue that the justice system is more severe on black people, the poor, the young, the male. But that has nothing to do with who has been committing the crimes.



Breaking the law doesn't make someone a bad person. Compare Ghandi to Himmler. Law has nothing to do with morality.

As for aboriginies, that situation is so out of hand that fuck know what's going on, but it certainly isn't the justice system's fault.

JoseClutch - "La majestueuse égalité des lois interdit aux riches comme aux pauvres de coucher sous les ponts"

Bien sûr. Je sais, mais je pense que les Americains ne parlent pas francais. Alors - en Anglais.

The problem with the "Aboriginal problem" in Australia is lack of equality.

We begin with Aboriginal people, unlike many other tribal groups, being basically peaceful people. Not that they were pacifists, but more that they simply weren't used to war, because there was so much land that they didn't run in to each other very much. So when white settlers came, they put up very little resistance, and were generally quite happy to have them there. This was very different to most parts of the world. Aboriginals have always said that they are quite happy to share the land with others, plenty of room for everyone.

So then there were no treaties (in USA the American Indians were forced to sign treaties, but at least they got treaties - Australian Aboriginals didn't even get that). They didn't get any recognition at all that they had ever even lived there. Australia was filled with convicts, and the convicts had more rights than Aboriginals. Legally, Aboriginals were regarded as having the same rights as sheep, dogs, cows, and other animals. And I am not talking about a Hindu society where some animals are regarded as sacred! Put simply, you could do whatever you liked to Aboriginals, with no consequence whatsoever.

There was a "war", but thousands of Aboriginals died with very little casualties on the other side, and it is basically forgotten about.

All of this changed in the early 1960s when the Prime Minister of the time Menzies decided to appreciate Aboriginals more. I'm not entirely clear why, but he did it. After changing a number of minor laws, and getting approval to do this, he held a referendum, in which Australians overwhelmingly approved for Aboriginals to be officially regarded as human beings, as equals to others.

Some sense of equality. All was going along fine. But Menzies didn't stop there. He decided to give land back to Aboriginal people so that they could live in traditional ways again. Of course, 180 years of oppression meant that most of them speak English and don't know much about their traditional ways anymore, but nonetheless officially they could do it, and a number of them tried. The only real exception was Alice Springs, because they had remained largely undiscovered until the 1930s, hence they only had 1 generation of serious oppression, while in the rest of the country it had lasted much longer.

Future governments kept on with this theme, and very quickly it changed from a "quest for equality" to "revenge" and "making up for the past". People started to lose property to aboriginals. Ayer's Rock was owned by a businessman, who paid in excess of $20 million for it, and then lost the lot with zero compensation because it belonged to Aboriginal people traditionally. Anywhere else they'd get compensation from the government, but they got nothing.

All over the country people were losing property, because the original owners of the land had stolen it. Nobody got compensation, or the few that did got very little. It created a feeling that they were giving far too much to Aboriginal people.

It just kept going and going and going, and many Aboriginal people became greedy and corrupt. Traditional owners were offered large sums of money by mining companies to allow them to mine in their traditional areas, and many of them agreed, and took the money. Sure, they gave it to the people of the area, and it was spread out, but they let them damage areas that were considered sacred to their people. All for the money. People living in these areas earned more money than the average wage, yet most of them wasted it all on gambling, alcohol and drugs, and still managed to live in poverty.

Aboriginals kept getting more and more "rights", getting special educational provisions, bonus health care, more money from welfare, and even recently they got a bonus per week for having a dog!

All the way through there was a traditional hatred for the native people of Australia, which had existed from before the 1960s in sections of the community, who regarded them as dirty, diseased, or evil in some way because of the colour of their skin. But this group was added to by people who genuinely felt hardly done by because Aboriginals got more rights than non-Aboriginals, which is the factual case today.

This in turn led to large amounts of discrimination to fight the extra rights.

In turn, aboriginal people tended to abuse these priveleges, and most of them didn't save, didn't go to school, didn't try to get a job, and just basically killed themselves, drinking themselves to death, and managing to live in poverty off US $50,000 per year each (in some areas where there was lots of mining).

Everyone knows that the answer is to aim for actual equality. We all know this. But any time that anyone dares to try to suggest it, they are told that they are a racist. "You can't strip them of their rights - they are the traditional owners of this land". Okay, so let's just call them royalty and be done with it. That's the only way that you can justify it. And increasingly aboriginal people are standing up and saying how wrong it is to get all of these extra benefits. But they are told to "Shut up or else we'll lose everything".

This exact same problem affects every group. The exact same thing happened with the feminist movement (and is still happening), where "BIG F" feminists like Germaine Greer argue that women deserve compensation, not equality, for being treated badly in the past.

Equality is the answer. Anything else, even if it is biased in your favour, really only ends up hurting everyone.

Actually Xavier, while wanting to protect the reputation of his site on wikipedia (given that it has an article this is understandable) was actually working hard to get wikipedia to change its attitude to pedophiles on the site and (given the Bauder blitz of self identifying peds) arguably with some success. Xavioer's main job is indeed to out pedophiles harrassing and abusing children in chat rooms but his role in getting wikipedia to change its ways is...well good faith.

En angalis aussi:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping underneath bridges.

Thanks for returning the thread back on track. I just have to get the last word, sorry.

I think that he had a point of view, and that he felt that he was doing the right thing. I haven't really analysed what he did to determine whether he actually did do the right thing or not. However, in my experience anyone who is trying to do the right thing overall does do the right thing, so I am sure that he did. He probably made some mistakes, but overall I am sure that his contributions were positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152948502
teh Jimbo has weighed in with a general kind of endorsement of not linking to Perverted Justice as long as there's a redirect there, so there probably won't be much more discussion. He doesn't say anything more about Xavier, but since Xavier seems happy to be blocked, I imagine nothing will happen.

Yeah, wikirules state that if you don't protest your block, then they'll assume that you accept that its a-okay. If you say something like "Legally, you're a private site and can ban whoever you like and I have no say, so even though I haven't broken any rules..." they'll interpret that as "Blah blah blah I am happy to be blocked blah blah blah I won't do anything blah blah blah you rule blah blah blah don't think of letting me back in". Trust me on this, if you don't protest it, it causes more trouble than if you do. Even if you create a gazillion sock puppets, its better for you than to just sit out and accept the block.

No - I mean, his user talk page is deleted, but

"...Whoopty doo. I'll call pedophiles what they are whereever I find them. Thanks for the block though, it is a stark confirmation of the allegations against Wikipedia And check me out when the block expires, I'll note a few more pedophiles afterwards and then you can block me again.

...Personally, I'd rather have this account be blocked from a project such as Wikipedia than be muzzled about noting the POV status of individuals...

I'm not interested in having a "formal appeal", nor am I interested in the opinions of the administrators here. I will not compromise with you because I don't care about what you think when it comes to noting the obvious biases of individuals on the project.

...

End of the day, there's no better reason to be blocked from Wikipedia than this one. This is the best reason I could have ever imagined as it confirms the "don't ask, don't tell" acceptance of pedophile activist editors here on this project. So block away and protect the talk-page "

Is his expressed opinion on the subject. This is intermingled with a lot of accusations that a specific editor is a pedophile and links to his wiki where he accuses him further of being a pedophile. My actual guess is that the guy he accuses of being a pedophile isn't, but Squeakbox probably knows who's pushing a pro-pedophilia POV better than I do (although I've seen him be a little overzealous throwing around accusations too.

That is a long long post. That'd be long even for me!

Much more direct and less manipulative than usual though. It isn't hard to understand what he is trying to say. Paraphrased, he is saying:



I am not entirely sure about the reference to his little girl though. I seem to vaguely recall that. Was that one of the things that Amorrow had up on his site? Or was that something different?

You would think that given PJ's abilities, as demonstrated on To Catch a Predator they should be able to bring forth an actual example of pedophile misconduct directed toward a user thought to be a child. This would be much more effective than exposing article POV pushing or policy wonking by "pedophile advocates."

I don't doubt that there is actual predatory pedophile conduct on WP. It would be as big a blow to WP as "Spies in Positions of Trust on WP" would be. So I assume it is only a matter of time. Once PJ possess this kind of smoking gun they should demand a seat at the table for reputable child protection advocates.

There were some open pedophiles, all of whom Bauder banned, I think. I think it'd be easy to get someone banned indefinitely for openly predatory pedophile misconduct, or even just strong pro Pedophilia POV pushing. But I know Squeakbox knows the area better than most (and it's probably unsurprising that historically most pedophilia articles had very few eyes on them - who wants to research for them, or edit them at work, or even at home? Not that many people. I know I don't.) I'm not entirely sure what the current state is, though ...

The thing is that Wikipedia has precious few actual examples of serious stalking. Pretty much the only example that we have ever found is Amorrow, and indeed we most likely wouldn't have found that if he hadn't become a member of Wikipedia Review. There are many minor examples (I was harassed by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Antaeus Feldspar in their efforts to protect SlimVirgin, and Selina was harassed by Malber) but of the serious ones they are precious few. This is because Wikipedia isn't really a major social experiment like a blog or chat site is. Blogs and chat sites are full to the brim with harassment, stalking and so forth. Just go through MySpace or LiveJournal history and you'll see many very serious examples. So, whilst Wikipedia has far less protection against stalking and harassment, it actually has less examples.

Similarly, I would expect that the actual amount of child luring on Wikipedia is incredibly rare. And, similarly with the Amorrow case, I can bet you that if there was an example, they'd hide it.

Like how Amorrow was *officially* banned from Wikipedia for writing a joke in bad taste, a paedophile would *officially* be banned for something equally as obscure.

Block log: RandomAdministrator blocked Likesemyoung for indefinite (disruption, trolling) for this edit [1]

Where 1 is an edit of him complaining to someone about something totally unrelated to child luring.

Of course, a lot of kids do use Wikipedia, and this, coupled with Wikipedia's creation of many sexual related articles leads to an obvious ability for people to link the two. Kids looking at inappropriate images, and people who might have unusual sexual leanings preying on children.

Oh and don't forget that if we took up the issue of protesting their obviously unfair block, we would then be labelled as ASSISTING PAEDOPHILES because Wikipedia certainly wouldn't give us any evidence of it.

Anything serious Wikipedia refuses to do anything about it.

Of course we don't know. Fortunately PJ has the means and now seems motivated to do the kind of investigative work needed.

Also the whole Amorrow thing is not on point.

People stalk using the same kinds of techniques that people use to lure children. It's just that the child lurers appear to be friendly and then get nasty, whilst the stalkers appear to their victims to be nasty and appear to everyone else to be friendly. Really, if Wikipedia can't do anything to stop stalkers, they aren't going to be able to do anything to stop child lurers either.

Perverted Justice is just a bunch of trolls. They should help people rather than hurt. For instance, known pedophile Michael Jackson was abused as a child by his father and Jacko mainly needs psychiatric help not somebody trolling him.

the delinking part I actually don't have a problem with, as long as the redirect of WP users.. after all the link isn't to the information intended.. it's just like if someone redirected it to goatse.cx.. you don't want people clicking on that!

Not. On. Point.

It is not even clear if any bona-fide stalking occurred with Amorrow. Like the kind of thing documented in a record of conviction or at the very least a police report. That matter seems to be in a gray area between histrionic wiki-stalking and maybe borderline real stalking.

We are talking about predators seeking to have IRL sex with people they believe to be children. Not at all the same thing. Wikipedia likes to conflate such things forcing us to carefully sort them out.

First off, since when is Michael Jackson a paedophile? I certainly don't think that he is. I think that he had an unusual childhood, and still thinks of himself as a child, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that he is a paedophile, in that he ever had sexual intercourse with any child.

Secondly, I can't recall any evidence that Michael Jackson was ever abused as a child. He might have been, I don't know, but no documentaries I've ever seen has suggested it.

Thirdly, if people are abused it DOESN'T EXCUSE ABUSE! I was abused heavily, and I don't go around abusing people. I had a bona fide psychopath put a gun to my head and shoot at me and stalk me for 6 months, before committing one of the most severe serial killings in world history. Yet I don't go around killing people, or doing stupid stuff. Yes, you can feel sympathy for bad things that happen to people, and yes statistically it does make it more likely that they are going to do bad things. But you NEED to separate the two! Don't excuse abuse because they might have had something bad happen to them. Be angry at the abuse. There is no excuse for such behaviour. But at the same time, yes, you can feel sorry for anything that bad that had happened to them. Also note that NOT ALL ABUSIVE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS! Some people are just bastards. Some people are power trippers. Some people are control freaks. Sometimes, even though they say that they were abused, its not true. Don't ever excuse it.

Yes, we should be angry at people who abuse children. Yes, we should be angry at rapists. Yes we should be angry at murderers. It is irrelevant what their past was like. They made a conscious choice to be nasty to others. This is all that we need to focus on.

I actually have a pet hate for people getting forgiven for such abhorrent actions, because it makes me think that all of my personal suffering was for nothing, because apparently the only way to get recognition is by doing something nasty.

And I know that most people who have gone through similar ordeals to mine end up either committing murder, or else committing suicide, or in a very rare occasions go wild on drugs and mess up their heads. It has been very difficult not to react in one of those ways. And people are always scared of me because they think that any day I'm going to just get a gun and start shooting at everyone, just because I had that happen to me. It's not nice to have people scared of you not because of anything that you've done, but because of something horrible that happened to you, that you had no control over. Of course, it does mean that nobody beats me up or anything, which is handy, but it makes me an outcast from society. Its difficult to deal with.

So no, don't give them any sympathy. If I ever did anything horrible like that, I wouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I just hope that I can be of some benefit to others, so that they can learn that you don't have to react in these negative ways, that there is a positive way to deal with these things.

Good point! Expanding on that hypocrisy, which we could do for hours, we have the wikiscanner, which "outs" editors, and yet from wikiland there is no outcry, for the anon editors are the untouchables. Yet for someone to expose a bias in an editor with a username is "outing", a rather perverse term for it that i still dislike.

I read your entire post and thought it very good. Hope to see you around more often. Welcome to WR.

You are Australian aren't you? Ivan Milat?

Okay first off, the backpacker murders were proven to have been committed by multiple people, and were not a serial killing. It is falsely described as a serial killing in order to lay the blame on Ivan Milat. Popular opinion is that it was the result of an organised crime gang, of which Ivan Milat may or may not have been a member (but probably was). There is no serious question that the killings were committed by several different people, not one man acting alone. As with all of these cases, there was major pressure from the federal government to convict "someone", not really caring who it was, and Ivan Milat happened to be that person. They were trying to avoid a repeat of the Lindy Chamberlain scandal (also see PA and Peter Falconio, same thing).

The guy that came after me in 1995 told me, in his death threats, letters to me, and aggressive phone calls, that he planned to commit a series of murders, which I interpreted as a serial killing, that would last for 1 year duration, beginning with a 10-person mass murder in Port Arthur on April 27, 1996. When the murders occurred on 28 April 1996 (with 2 killings actually occuring the night before) in the exact way that was described, I found it difficult to believe that it could be anyone other than the person who had come after me. A different man was arrested, and copious amounts of evidence has proven that he couldn't possibly have done it. Ergo, I think that the person who did it was the same person that came after me, and furthermore he sent me a letter telling me that he had completed his year long killing spree, and I know of at least 4 people who he murdered in the year following. He was trailed by secret police, and eventually killed by them. I described it as a serial killing. This is why I have so much knowledge about PA, more than anyone else that has edited the article on Wikipedia. Because I not only was there, but I was warning people about it from a year before it happened. But they didn't believe me! They sure as hell believed me when it happened, though! But its been so long now that people forget all of the facts of the case.