http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Don_Murphy#Revision

Here's a question: Why isn't RTFA blocked under WP:UN? Just because it's an acronym doesn't mean it isn't obscene.

And just so y'all won't have to look it up, it means "Read The F*cking Article." There can be no question as to which article he means, either, since Don_Murphy is the only article he edits. Obviously they're not going to block him for using WP as a revenge platform since that's WP's primary purpose, but still.

At least Doc_glasgow's on the case... Squeakbox too, of course, though that isn't quite as reassuring.

What a little shit. Is he trying to get Wikimedia a libel suit?
And after being rebuffed last week, he comes back and
starts it all over.

I also see that Murphy's forum
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=21925
has links to anti-pedophile websites, wherein people are talking
about WP's pedo-friendly atmosphere.

Seriously, I have to wonder how many legal threats they are
fighting right now--quietly.

True:

http://www.boychat.org/messages/1071772.htm

Really PEEJ is way off track there. They just dislike wikipedia because paedophiles are not vilified on site and hung drawn and quartered. IN reality and sign of solicitation would see an infinite ban. As it is society does not lock most criminals up for life or tar and feather them if they are ever released, they are let to go about their daily life (though i must say the access to criminal records in the US is a lot more lax than in australia).

I have seen some serious critiscisms of PEEJ in a newspaper editorial. Amounting to 1. many of them and paticuarly the founder treat it like a giant game. In reality he is a big nerd and that is his MMORPG (MMRLRPG), the implication being that he really didnt give a shit who people are, they are just a form of prey. 2. when filming the dateline NBC program "to catch a predator" the PEEJ volunteers will go to great lengths to convince their mark to come to the house where NBC is waiting with cameras rolling. Even when the mark decides to use their better judgement and halt the exchange, the PEEJ person playing the little girl will go to great lengths to get them over to the house. Now obviously there are those that are caught that are just looking for sex with a young girl, but if these guys start off on the wrong track then realise that where they are heading is illegal, unethical or immoral then they should be let to use their better judgement, not cajoled (by an adult female who is practised at that game) into making a choice they are unsure about.

Now don't get me wrong I'm no where near advocating for paedophiles rights here. But just take the PEEJ stuff with a grain of salt, as that is user generated content as much as wikipedia is.

And don't forget all these of course:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17032



Duh they are not there to solicit. They just want a write a whole bunch of articles that romanticise the subject, and present a skewed and biased view of the subject. What are you talking about. ONCE AGAIN:



That is the reason, geddit?

Yes, I realize the Perverted Justice people are twisted in their own way.

Still, given that the subject is such a political white-hot potato, Wikimedia
would be smart to publicly, loudly distance themselves from the whole
subject.

Yet the more I read about how Wikimedia "operates", the less
public responsibility (and the more secrecy and paranoia) I see.
Since late 2006, that place literally runs more like the Skull and
Bones Club than like an educational nonprofit.

Read their "code of conduct".
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct_Policy
Very vague, no specifics, no institutional policy or system for
review of allegations of misconduct. Most college fraternities
have better-written documents!

Anyone remember the Quarto?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto
It would be a valuable public-outreach organ.
Why did they quietly stop publishing it in 2005?

I see no evidence they have taken a public stand against illegal
pedophilic activity (or any other illegal activity), after looking thru
wikimedia.org.

Search on "pedophile" or even "controversy". Nothing. Just the usual
self-congratulatory and uninformative press releases.
Nothing in the resolutions section.

I mean, read WP's own article about NAMBLA.
A responsible NPO would run screaming away from any such controversy.

(None of this would relate to Don Murphy, except that he DID bring it up on
hiw own forum...)

RTFA is DOWN via Doc Glasgow
The insanely ugly Joshua Zelinsky who no woman will ever love is fighting Doc
Round 3 continues

Haw haw haw!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Don_Murp...om_this_article

The little shit isn't lonely anymore....



The pot calls the kettle "disruptive" again.

I gotta stop reading this. It only makes me want to strangle someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...from_Don_Murphy

<moderator note>moved from General discussion to Editors forum

OH RLY? This is from WP:UN:

Admittedly they don't use the word "acronym" specifically, but the word "substitutions" should just about cover it, surely?

Of course, misinterpretation of WP policy in favor of revenge-getters is pretty much to be expected from a known sockpuppeteer like User:JoshuaZ.

The 'F' in RTFM and RTFA stand for 'fine'.

What must not be overlooked here is that RTFA's actions have the approval of the Arbitration Committee.

ArbCom: socks are bad, and will earn you a ban…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#Sockpuppetry

…if you want one, come to us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199013305
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=202262666
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cruftbane