Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Page was getting long... I archived most of the material and summarized the naming discussion below. Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Redacted summary of comments re: project name=

It's kind of a toss-up, but based on the above I think that Pedophilia Article Watch is probably good to. Great work, that is name that no one had come up with at first and that was arrived at through discussion. Good stuff. Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Project name and goals

My thoughts on the name are related to the projects goals and the overarching principles that guide them. People have thrown out a lot ideas above and given their ideas about how we should proceed. I feel good about the success of the project after reading over all the comments top to bottom. We have a group of thoughtful people that are discussing it in a positive manner. If we are patient and work together, I think project will work. Even be the pride of 'pedia. : ) I see two separate issues that need to be addressed.

First, I understand that we want to be welcoming. That WP is a wiki that encourages everyone to edit. But I think we should be realistic about the negative influence that over involved user have on an article and WP. For that reason, pedophiles and child sexual abuse victims would be problematic to this project. Regrettably, POV editing, OR, and ownership issues are common among editors that are personally involved in an article’s topic.

Laying out the principles that reflect both wiki openess and the practical reality of involved editor might be helpful. I took these from recent Wikipedia:arbitration committee cases. I think they do a good job of stating the overarching principles of this project. I offer them here because they reflect the earnest and thoughtful reflection of a group of Wikipedians trying to make Wikipedia better. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, they were developed by consensus. That means that they could change if the arbritrators consensus shifts. Or if Jimbo and the Foundation establish something different. They may be interrpreted differently in different situations. Never the less, I think they are a good guide for us.

1. Editing controversial articles There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.

2. Neutral Point Of View Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view which relate to a subject.

3. Extreme points of view Provided they are reasonably courteous and conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

4. Verifiability versus original research Users are expected to use reliable published information as the source for the material they place in Wikipedia articles. Subtle overreaching and spinning of information is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

5. Assume good faith Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

6. Personal attacks and incivility Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policies may be banned from editing, either in a certain field or from all pages.

7. Involvement in the event Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Wikipedia article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with.

8. Tendentious editing Users who engage in sustained, aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the entire site.

Based on our recent experience launching this project and the current conflicts on some project related articles, I think we need address these problems up front. This involves naming the project and adopting overarching principles and goals. Then we need to think about how to bring them into the day-to-day operation of the project. In this regard, I think we should be extremely practical. End of Part one (yes, my friends there's more.) FloNight talk 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, thank you FloNight! And yes all basically agreeable. Just to reiterate, I would welcome and assume good faith from every editor regardless of any declared personal involvment in the issue until and if this manifests itself in some problematic way. There are editors with involvment in the issue who have been excellent, reasonable, and helpful.
However, its true that its probably difficult for most people with great involvment in any issue to work on that issue without suffering discomfort from the tug between their Wikipedia duties and their own personal feelings. But some can do it. (And after all, if there's anyone who is practiced in supressing their feelings for higher moral reasons, it'd be a non-offending pedophile, you'd think.) Herostratus 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

About the project name

I think renaming this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia would be helpful in attracting new members to keep it alive and useful, both because it broadens the scope and because it takes it away from the most controversial paraphilia. Ashibaka tock 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose we name it to just 'WikiProject Pedophilia' as the 'Article Watch' bit is redundant. Skinnyweed 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, I guess there was pretty much consensus for the current name, Skinnyweed, based on lot of discussion, some of which is in the archive. I think one of the issues was to avoid the possible first-glance perception by non-members that the project might in some way be promoting a bias one way or another... I guess 'Article Watch' was added to help make sure that the project is not seen as POV-pushing in any way. Herostratus 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspected it was named what it is for that reason. That's a bit unfortunate. That's letting outside (and POV) influence enter into this project. Skinnyweed 01:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe a bit unfortunate. Although that's better than getting deleted, which is what almost happened when the project was launched.

But also, I guess it's also pretty accurate of what the founders intended, in a way, I guess. The original founders weren't so much interested in the subject of pedophilia per se, and of researching and adding new articles etc., as in cleaning up, verifying, and watching existing articles. I don't know as the project name really imples POV very much. The point is to watch for introduction of POV from either "side", so to speak. There is plenty of POV available from people who are hysterically and uninformedly "anti", so to speak, although I haven't seen that turn up so much in articles lately, as from those who are "pro", so to speak. (Obviously "anti" and "pro" are gross simplifications of a very complicated subject, just using those terms for shorthand.) Herostratus 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a change to Wikiproject:Paraphilia. An organized effort to ensure that controversial paraphilia articles aren't skewed by positive or negative biases sounds like something Wikipedia needs. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

There is now a watchlist link on the main article page. This is a cool thing, I did not know about this little trick. Basically there is a page called Watchlist that lists a bunch of articles (of course anyone is welcome to add/subtract to it), and clicking on the "Related changes" gives the recent changes for all those articles - like having them on your watchlist but without cluttering up your regular watchlist. Cool. The main page icon is just a shortcut for that. (Also it has a picture of an eye. I put that in because I take any excuse I can get to dork around in Photoshop. But maybe the eye looks too scary, I dunno.)Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

P.A.W.


Hey. Pedophile Article Watch makes an acronym. I'm not gonna make a userbox but here's a graphic that I'm using on my own page. Herostratus 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought of that too. Later can make an user box. Being cautious in this regard is a good idea. : ) FloNight talk 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes indeed. I don't think templates are going into template space anymore anyway -- people are just gonna have to copy them from other people or whatever. I just can't resist a chance to dork around in the graphics editor...Herostratus 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow you guys are doing a great job! --DanielCD 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking Herostratus I saw this logo and thought it a bit "wrong". At first glance it looks like it may have association with Furry fandom. Then for a user to click on it and see the word "pedophilia" might lead to some hysteria. Not sure if it's a real potential problem or not. (PS I'm a visual communications professional so I tend to overthink these things - it's my job) --Monotonehell 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Is Child sexual abuse on your list to watch? --DanielCD 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See the list of articles, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Watchlist. Joey Q. McCartney 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah its on the watchlist. I saw it lighting up the board but haven't look at it, I'm looking at Child sexuality mostly right now. I'll take a look though. Herostratus 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Also check out the cool new tools I dug up (Tools section). Nice for any kind of watchy-type activity (any subject) as you can sort article history by editor and check recent changes for a whole category at once. Herostratus 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am working on the child sexual abuse article. What was up there was full of POV and unsourced statements. Someone has been reverting the changes after I make them. That won't stop me, but I want to bring it to your attention, because clearly the person who is doing so prefers the unverifiable, unsourced POV version.Volpe 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Volpe - please discuss your changes on talk:child sexual abuse, and please also use edit summaries. If other editors understand what you're doing then they are more likely to accept your changes. -Will Beback 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Done; thank you. Volpe 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Child"

(I moved this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology for neatness and to prevent its being buried by the next archiving of this page. Herostratus 08:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

LS Studio

Could you guys add this article to your watch list? There has been some problems lately about people adding information based on false claims and/or unverified sources. The biggest issue right now is the sentence that reads: "No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas," eventhough there is no actual evidence of banana sucking. You can see some of the problems on the talk page, although, right now it looks like we've come to a good consensus on the talk page, but I still feel the article will have complications in the future. --Jelligraze 13:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check and see if it's on the list. --DanielCD 03:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could someone check out the link that an anon added to this article. I can't access it from where I'm at right now. I decided to remove it. --DanielCD 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This article may need to be protected if future links appear. Discussion of this in detail is troll bait, so may post to Wikipedia email list instead of AN/I if problem continues. FloNight talk 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the link that was edited & I agree that it definitely isn't acceptable. Maybe we should put a comment at the top of the edit page that informs anyone planning on editing the article that links to LS related material is strictly prohibited. --Jelligraze 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Members

I think we should make an inactive members section for people gone for more than a month. I think User:Ineloquent (Parox) is gone. Perhaps he's resurrected again, but I've no idea if this is so. --DanielCD 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. The member list should reflect actual conditions. Returning members can move their names back to the active list whenever they want to. Herostratus 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Voor een verloren soldaat

What's the policy on movies and books related to the topic? --DanielCD 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Shotacon

Could someone check out the links at the bottom of this article to the "forums" and make sure they are not something slimy? --DanielCD 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rind et al. (1998)

I removed Rind et al. (1998) because editors at talk:Rind et al. (1998) insist that it has no connection to Pedophilia. -Will Beback 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the WP:PAW. Well within our project's objectives. FloNight talk 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any logic to that move at all. I put it back in. --DanielCD 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion on that article is off track from the true issues. A lot of straw men being burned over there. --FloNight talk 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So if it is listed here then can we have a link from that article to pedophilia? We can't have it both ways: either the report is related to pedophilia or it is not. -Will Beback 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Will, the topics here are broader than the APA def of pedophilia so it should be part of PAW. That said, I've read Rind et al. (1998) and See also link to pedophilia is appropriate anyway, if that is what you are talking about. --FloNight talk 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Then please add pedophilia to Rind et al. (1998), as well as a definition of what this project is about. Right now it says simply "pedophilia". -Will Beback 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thaks for addressing that, User:FloNight, but I'm afraid your edit didn't last. Could editors please explain the connection between Rind et al. (1998) and this project? If it has nothing to do with pedophilia then it does not belong here. If it has something to do with pedophilia then there should be a link in the article to that topic. -Will Beback 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This project seems to also covers child sexual abuse, which Rind et al. is (needless to say) relevant to. 24.224.153.40 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What does child sexual abuse have to do with pedophilia? I thought you and others were adamant that the two were unrelated. -Will Beback 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
They are somewhat connected, but, anyway, I didn't name this project. WP:PAW covers both CSA and pedophilia. Okay? 24.224.153.40 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How are they connected? The intro to this project says nothing about CSA, just pedophilia. Why would it if there is no connection between pedophiles and child molestation? -Will Beback 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Easily fixed. 24.224.153.40 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(btw, connection, even though you're just going to turn this around on me: [many] pedophiles want to have sex with children, which in real life is child sexual abuse) 24.224.153.40 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
But pedophiles don't actually have sex with children, as you've often said before. Therefore I've reverted your undiscussed change to the scope of this project. -Will Beback 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Wikipedia:Wikiproject child sexual abuse seems like it should be a different project. -Will Beback 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well, a couple points. Its not always really possible to get all the members of a project to agree with precision what all the goals are. Some projects have somewhat broad or vague goals to serve as an umbrella for various people to work under subsets of.

Will, you said "But pedophiles don't actually have sex with children, as you've often said before." I don't recall anyone saying that, and if they did, that's crazy. Obviously at least some pedophiles are child sex criminals.

I myself try to disabuse people of the notion that most child sex criminals are pedophiles (in the scholarly sense of the term), because that's just incorrect, and it makes it hard to have a discussion when people are using a term to mean different things.

But let's not go overboard. That fact that some pedophiles are also child sex criminals is embarassing to law-abiding pedophiles, and it's a fact that I (personally) don't want to overstress for various reasons, but you can't just wave it away either.

Also, the term "pedophile" is used idiomatically to mean "child sex criminal". That's not the scholarly definition, but it is a definition. Because of that, in any article relating to child sex abuse etc., an uninformed editor might replace (say) "child sex criminal" with "pedophile" where that's not appropriate. So those articles have to be watched. We are looking to avoid bias and unscholarly terminology from all quarters.

As far as the project intro and the Goals section... there is a whole little section "Nomenclature", and a subpage for discussion of terminology. (Actually, I think It'd be a good idea to change "Nomeclature" to "Terminology" (I'll do that now, it's purely for clarity, if any objection revert and discuss.)) Anyway, if someone wanted to add "(see Terminology section)" after the word "pedophilia" in the intro and elsewhere, I wouldn't object. Herostratus 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that sensible discussion. Since there is so little overlap between pedophilia and child sexual abuse I think it is inappropriate for the two topics to be lumped together. As I have learned from editors here, pedophilia is a strictly-defined disorder [orientation] coverered by the DSM, while child sexual abuse is a crime covered by the legal code. Apples and oranges. Let's keep this project focused on pedophilia and related paraphilias, and put the child sexual abuse in a different project, probably as a subproject of crimes. -Will Beback 10:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Will, you have not kept up with our most recent discussions on this topic. I have strongly (politely, I hope) objected to the exclucive use of the narrow definitions. To be WP:NPOV and avoid OR all verifiable definitions of pedophilia need to be used. Otherwise you have a definition that is different than one used by the most people. In some cases, it also gives our articles a pro-pedophilia slant. FloNight talk 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, Will, here's the thing. "Pedophilia" does mean "child sexual abuse". Because that's how people use it, and the definition of any word derives from its usage. Turn on the TV, and you'll hear "Congreman Schmoe was arrested today for pedophilia". Like it or not, that is one meaning of the word. This project can try to define and educate, but Wikipedia's mission is to describe, not define or educate. So we have to deal with that. In addition... well, what I said above. Herostratus 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Flo, I'll start a new section below re your comments. Herostratus 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We can't be inconsistant. I don't understand why FloNight thinks it is appropriate for us to use the word "pedophilia" to describe two different things. One of them, child sexual abuse, has terms of its own. Obviously the term "child sexual abuse" is clear and understandable and should be used whenever we are describing child sexual abuse. It would be better if we had another word for "pedophilia," since the difference between action and inaction is too complicated for society to understand, but we've only got one term (except POV ones like "pedosexual" and "childlover"). Plus, "pedophilia" is defined by OED -- i.e. the God of the English language -- as "sexual love for children," and most other dictionaries similarly define it. This is not OR. We need to use one definition. 24.224.153.40 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Many words have more than one definition. I don't see why we should necessarily forbid particular definitions. Even the OED likely has a couple for "pedophilia" and "pedophile". The "American Dictionary" defines "pedophilia" as:
  • The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
So they include the act as well as the fantasy. -Will Beback 01:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
How are our readers supposed to even understand what we're talking about if we use society's braindead semantics? To be clear -- so our reader knows whether we're talking about a fantasy or a crime -- we need to choose a definition of pedophilia that makes sense and consistently use it throughout Wikipedia's articles. This is the world of editorial decision. In this world we're allowed to use our minds and weigh choices to see what would make our article more readable and openly informative. This is not original research.
And unless someone can dig up some other word that means "primary sexual interest in children," we don't have any other better word to describe it. We're stuck with "pedophilia." If we want to be clear and make our articles even mildly understandable, we have to refer to the other "meaning" with a different term -- and we have plenty for that. Child sexual abuse or child molestation. 24.224.153.40 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Will. This better meets WP:NPOV and keeps us away from OR, too. --FloNight talk 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
24, we're not here to right the world's wrongs, only to write the world's encyclopedia. If the terms "pedophile" and "child molester" are intertwined, or even synonyms, then so be it. It isn't our job to correct usage, only to describe what exists. -Will Beback 23:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag in general, and taggging of Rind et al in particular

Tag

Using the default Wikipedai template for tagging article talk pages results in this:


This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia Article Watch. For guidelines see WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Which seemed awkward and wrong, so I made this tag:


This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Using the word "pedophilia" for the first instance. Is this OK, should #1 above be used or should #2 used but with different wording, or does it matter.

Should Rind stay tagged?

Some projects tag scores of articles related to their object, but I do not that would be a good idea for this project, at all. Instead, I think we should only tag articles that someone is actively working on watching especially closely. Right now three articles are tagged, two are being worked on. But Rind, I had tagged that for POV but I've not got around to going beyond that, so unless someone else is working on it, I (as the tagger) don't object to removing the tag from the article, in fact it might be a good idea. Is that OK, or should it stay? Herostratus 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It should stay tagged. Have you seen the discussion at the article? Yesterday, DanielCD and I discussed working on the artle BEFORE this blew up last evening (US EST). Many projects mark their articles with talk headers, I don't see the big deal here. This project is over if we can't associate pedophilia and child sexual abuse. The continued denial of the general definition of pedophilia by WP users is a big problem for this project. It allows people to argue that Pedophilia is not an appropriate See also for Rind et al. (1998). Herostratus, I think we need to deal with this issues head on. I plan to use this concise, broad definition for pedophilia:

Sexual desire felt by an adult for children, or the crime of sex with a child. (From Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation.) FloNight talk 11:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta? NO, BWANA! TABOO!!! =) (j/k) Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No,I haven't been following it... damn I hate that article. It blew up again? Yeesh. Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about the tag. I'm not sure it's needed. But I'm also saying this without having read the discussions. --DanielCD 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Also: Flo, ppl are following our discussions and reacting to them. A trend I've noticed. No idea what the motive could be. --DanielCD 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why it shouldn't stay tagged? It seems highly unobvious to me why you would remove the tag. JoshuaZ
No, absolutely, keep the tag, no problem, just checking. The only reason I asked if the tag should be removed is:
  1. I myself had tagged the article.
  2. I myself am not watching or working on the article at this time.
  3. I didn't know if anyone else on the project was or not.
  4. And I think that -- Unlike WikiProject Japan or whatever -- we should only tag a few articles at a time, ones that at least one project member is seriously engaged it. Because the tag (properly) links to this project, and dropping too many tags about is likely to bring in the merely curious, some of whom are not necessarily prepared to approach the subject in a scholarly and dispassionate manner. Which is life, but I (personally anyway) don't necessarily want people dropping in and getting into it about an article on a level of detail which no one on the project is engaged in enough to prepared to handle, is all. Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, JoshuaZ and DanielCD, see my comment below at Lolicon. I think we should label all the articles related to pedophilia and child sexual abuse. We act as an central location for editors to advertise content disputes, place questions about general issues related to topic. Over time interested editors will learn to come here to keep up with articles related to these topics. FloNight talk

This is amusing

Jimbo's take on the Child Modeling (erotic) article...

I guess if anyone scolds us for severly redacting an aricle we can say Just be glad he isn't a project member... Herostratus

And he didn't even give a ref. I'd give him a vandalism warning for that one: deleting material without giving a reason. :). --DanielCD 13:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see Paroxysm had the guts to revert his edit. Founder or not, that was just intolerable for Jimbo to do. --Jelligraze 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, he probably knew he would be reverted soon enough. We humor the old codger a bit. Herostratus 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Rind et al suddenly gets hot right when I'm lookiing for something to work on that's not. --DanielCD 13:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

Lolicon is is an example of an article that should be tagged, right? And a notice about the significant debates brought to the talk page of WP:PAW. This project is an obvious location to advertise a straw poll. Copyright violation, content dispute causing page protection, discussion about the use of imageboard external links with images of child sex acts. If we don't involve the project in these issues, what is our purpose? Am I wrong?FloNight talk 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to thing the goals of this project might be a little too ambitious for so few people. I don't know much about Lolicon other than it's sex cartoons or something. --DanielCD 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. The project mostly needs to be a central location for editors use to find information, advertise a content dispute, leave general questions. Over time editors will learn to come here to find information related to this topic. FloNight talk 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I don't mean to poo-poo it or anything. I think it will have growing pains, but what doesn't. I'm always here for a third opinion guys; keep up the good work. ;) --DanielCD 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plan to Afd LS Studio

I'm trying to gather consensus to delete this article. There is no verifiable reliable source for the content of the article. Evidently the current content is original research. Look through past versions and you will see that more detailed original research describing the web site has been removed. None of the newspaper articles identify LS Studio by name. I searched through FBI press announcements looking for some evidence that LS Studio was raided. I looked through the United States official statements on human rights violations for Ukraine. Again, I find general reference to the FBI's involvement in shutting down child porn web sites in Ukraine but nothing specifically naming this studio.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LS Studio I'm not satisfied with the outcome of this Afd. There was heavy input from pro-pedophilia pov editors. There was a vote from a brand new user. This Afd vote was their first and last edit. Unless someone can find verifiable reliable sources in the next 48 hours I'm going to start another Afd. The article Child pornography already includes this content so there is no need to merge. Make comments at Talk:LS Studio FloNight talk 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Raids

http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2001/0326-00.htm

Here's a site that Wikipedia doesn't have anything on. The Blue Orchid thing. Part of the Candyman stuff? --DanielCD 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

housekeeping

I did a little housekeeping, nothing major, except that I changed the definition of "child" to the one that (I think) we had more or less agreed on a while back, this had never been done. Herostratus 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sure no-one objects to those improvement, FloNight. Are you OK with the change? I think it was discussed. It seems reasonable to all, I think. One problem is that opening of our article child is: "A child (plural: children) is a young human, or someone who has not yet reached puberty (someone who is prepubescent)." I left a note on the talk page there asking for references for that statement. Herostratus 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything is fine. I noticed Child, too. We'll give it some time after your note, and then fix it. : ) Thanks for following up on Child sexual abuse and removing the unsourced content. Did you know that Sexual child abuse redirects to Sexual Abuse? (As I accidently found out just now) Do you think we should change it? FloNight talk 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Herostratus 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The downside of term expansionism

From Talk:Child sexual abuse, regarding whether this statment is true: Sexual relations between adults and minors in western society remain controversial.

The problem with this is that minor means 17 and under, adult means 18 and over. Therefore some of the relationships the above sentence describes are between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds. I don't think that sexual relations between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old is a problem, and I don't think many people do. Even if one contends that its not ideal, few would say that its sick or twisted or evil.

So the statement at the top is certainly true.

Further, using the expanded definition of "child" as meaning (if not further qualified) "minor", even changing minor to child: Sexual relations between adults and children in western society remain controversial is still true.

In fact, the use of "child" to mean "person under 18" means that the following statements are all true:

  • Some children enjoy sex with adults.
  • Some children are capable of a full range of sexual responses.
  • Sexual relations between children and adults is quite common.
  • Some children are capable of falling in love romantically with adults.
  • Some children later willingly marry the man who initiated them into sex.

You see the problem here.

A guy in Maine was shot dead a few days ago. The killer (possibly a victim of true child sex abuse) picked him at random off the State of Maine sex offender site (Maine does not differentiate between types of offense on its website). His crime was having relations with his girfriend, two weeks shy of of her sixteenth birthday, when he was 19. I think he was in his thirties, maybe late twenties, when he was killed.

We can infer that the guy and his girlfriend were going out behind the backs of the girl's parents. That seems the most likely scenario for him to have been arrested and convicted, when they found out. According to the murdered man's mom, they guy loved the girl and had wanted to eventually marry her, wasn't just preying on her.

Now, this likely wouldn't have been a good situation. If I was that girl's dad in that situation, I would have been plenty mad. But I don't think the guy deserved to die. I don't even think he deserved to have to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender and be listed on state websites. His crime was contributing to the deliquency of a minor, maybe. It wasn't a sex crime, really.

So, yeah, if we're going to get into teen sex and mix that up into one pot with sex abuse of pre-pubescent children, it's gonna make everything harder. Herostratus 04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to tinker with the wording. We need to acknowledge all the major meanings in all the major cultures. This is not going to be easy but we can do it. It's best for us to stick to the facts as verified by reliable sources. The reality is that adults do get arrested for sexually abusing teens. And the reality is that adults can have consensual sexual contact with teens. We need to figure out a way to make that jibe! --FloNight talk 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
People who engage in consensual sex with minors are characteristically charged with "statutory rape". There is a range of gradations of contact that many U.S. lawbooks recognize from "attempted solication with a computer" all the way through to plain old "rape" and beyond. But in the common language we don't have so many distinctions. Clearly "sexual offender" can refer to many sex crimes unrelated to minors. As for the matter of "controversy", I'm not sure where the controversy lies. I don't know of any nation in which the pro-child sex lobby has any significant public presence. There aren't enough voices opposing the anti child-adult sex view to call it a controversy, with some individual exceptions such as the "pedophile priest" matter. -Will Beback 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminology section

I change the definition of an ephebophile and pedarast to clearly specify they are adults since a adolescents are never labeled ephebophiles in the scholarly work so far as I've seen. The rest of the terminology section should be modified as it fails to properly specify the age group(s) that a person can be pedophiles. Because of this vagueness, a 10 year old boy attracted to 10 year old girls would be a pedophile which is not how the term in generally used either scientifically or in the mass media. The definition of pedophilia should be made clearer as to who can be a pedophile. Pedophiles should be limited to adults and sometimes adolescents (when their is a significant age difference between the teen and the child such a 15 yo and a 6yo but not say a 13yo and 12yo.). --Cab88 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction Article

There is a discussion going on at the Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction article as to a breach of NPOV policy - on the talk page. -195.93.21.39 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up 195. I find myself agreeing with your position on this. Herostratus 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag on "Pedophilia"

User:Haham hanuka tagged Pedophilia as NPOV after I reverted this change. But then he just sort of disappeared, although I asked him to share his concerns on the talk page. It's been on my conscience--I reverted the change because the new language was strange in English and didn't actually support the point I think he was trying to make, not to shut him up or drive him away. So, with him not choosing to continue participation in the article, how do we go about correcting the NPOV and getting the flag off the page?
Thanks! DanB DanD 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, it is the responsibility of the editor placing the {NPOV} tag to describe the POV problem on the article talk page. If they don't then other editors may remove the tag without any other action. -Will Beback 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's a relief! DanB DanD 01:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Boylove for the axe?

A while back I cleaned up Boylove, which was extremely messy at that time. But I just noticed that "childlove" and "girllove" are just redirects to Pedophile activism. Should I make "boylove" the same, or is the chance that unsuspecting manga fans will get a shock enough reason to keep the separate page? DanB DanD 01:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The manga term is "boys love". I don't think the term "boylove" is notable enough to have a separate article. There's nothing to say about that is substantially different from the material we already have at Pedophile activism. -Will Beback 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

medical knowledge, anyone?

Can anybody help with checking the accuracy of User:TlatoSMD's new section about brain surgeries on the pedophilia page? I've already found one basic error: he says thalamotomies and lobotomies are the same thing, which they aren't. But I don't know enough to fix it. DanB†DanD 23:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW?

Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW?

And why is it called Pedophilia Article Watch?

A paw icon doesn't really reflect in any way the ideas of the article improvement... People are going to think it's a bestiality article watch or something. :P --Rookiee Revolyob 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW? Because minority and inapropriate opinion has been included into that article in the past, trying to push a POV that is not generally accepted by scolarly sources.
And why is it called Pedophilia Article Watch? I didn't participate in the discussions that named this project page, the project's intent is to readdress the balance of innapropriate POV in articles that "pedophile activists" tend to target in order to push their minority POV.
PAW icon!, I said pretty much the same thing above. --Monotonehell 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a long tussle over the name of the project. It's in the archives and summarized at the top of this talk page. It was originally named Wikiproject:Pedophilia, which was my choice, but the consensus was that would not be a good name, one reason being that it would probably keep getting deleted by passerby. As to the icon, um, I dunno. I made it; it's a pun, I guess: PAW = picture of a paw. I only put it in the template a bit ago; other projects have icons in their templates. And I don't know what other image you could have. But if active participants don't like it, take it out. Herostratus 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it, but fear that it can be misinterpreted as meaning several other things. ;) --Monotonehell 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm even more confused, now. I joined Project Pedophilia under understanding that it was a project to "improve" pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument. But, if I understand Monotonehell correctly, his idea of it is that it's to ensure that there is an unequal voice regarding the issue, calling our side the "minority opinion". This to me is simply not allowable. There's two sides to an argument. For, and against, and it should not matter which side has more proponents or opponents; it should always be equally and objectively argued to ensure NPOV. --Rookiee Revolyob 09:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
First, there is no room in wikipedia for partisan "our side"s or "their side"s. Please leave your opinions and beliefs at the door. What I said was that in the past there was a POV being pushed out of proportion by a minority of editors. I did not tar "all pedophiles" or "all pedophile activists" with the same brush, if that's what you're thinking. Wikipedia is based on scholarly sources. That is all work must be backed up with an authoritive source. There's a vast gulf between "improve pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument" and having an article biased heavily with one POV. Idealy there should be no POV at all, but in some areas there exists conflicting POVs which must be all documented in an encyclopedic manner. In my experiences trying to walk this fine line in age of consent I've found that some people on both sides of an argument are never happy until "their side" is the only voice. No matter how balanced an article is. It's a hard line to walk and I've been called both a Leftist and a rightist (as an insult) trying to keep the balance. So I guess I'm doing the right thing so far.
If you indeed joined "Project Pedophilia under understanding that it was a project to improve pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument." Then YAY! edit away. That's what I'm all for. If you look at some of my edits you see me removing the ugly accusitive language some editors use surrounding this topic and the mislableing of pedophile on topics that clearly are not; in an attempt to make it more matter of fact and encyclopedic. As well as pulling unsubstantiated rants. I've also let edits stand that I don't agree with simply because they are properly sourced and unbiased. My least favourite times on Wikipedia have been when an editor is hell bent pushing a POV and can't/won't see that they are pushing a biased POV. Check out the history of age of consent for some of those fun times. ;P --Monotonehell 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree at all that two sides of every argument should be given equal weight. Wiki's task is to reflect academic consensus, not to be a forum for debate. Notable groups dissenting from academic consensus should be mentioned, but discussed only to the extent that their views are important in the world outside Wikipedia. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are a violation of God's law. That may be significant enough to mention, but it would be absurd if 50% of the article on blood transfusions were written from the Jehovah's Witness perspective to ensure that both sides were treated equally. That's not non-discrimination, it's promotion of an obscure point of view.
The case with pedophile activism is comparable. A culturally marginal perspective does not merit "equal time" with academic consensus - that would be a violation of the "undue weight" policy.
DanB†DanD 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That's basically what I said, except Dan put it MUCH more succinctly. XD --Monotonehell 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, right. The purpose of the project is to correct biased and improperly sourced material from all points of the compass, so to speak. I personally strive to correct the mistaken impression that pedophiles and child molesters have much in common generally, that pedophiles are predators, and so forth. I've worked with good editors who are pedophiles and who have contributed well to the Wikipedia, and I abhor the contretemps a few months back when pedophile editors were made to feel unwelcome just for being pedophiles. And we certainly don't want any Daily Mail-type nonsense introduced into article space, At the same time we certainly don't want Wikipedia articles used as a platform for adult-child-sex-normalization advocacy, and this has been the bigger problem in my personal experience (recognizing that many adult-child-sex-normalization advocates are not pedophiles and vice versa). And what Mono and Dan said about marginal points of view. We don't want unbalanced articles, or articles that give a mistaken impression of any aspect of the subject covered. Also, since this is such a fraught area, I think we need to be especially careful to provide proper (verifiable, neutral, respected, and when possible peer-reviewed) references for most any major statement. When we edit Wikipedia we are not gay or straight or pedophilic or whatever, we are encyclopediasts, a proud designation. Herostratus 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I was thinking that a better name for the product would be either Child Sexuality Article Watch, or possibly even just Child Article Watch.

At the founding of Pedophilia Article Watch, there was some thought that it might expand in the direction of other paraphilias, but that hasn't happened. I think the current name is bit restrictive, and also might put people off a bit. 'Age of consent reform doesn't really bear directly on pedophilia, for instance. And I watch the article Child and some others that are only tangentially related to pedophilia.

Child Sexuality Article Watchis a little bit more NPOV than Pedophilia Article Watch and allows a little more leeway in the articles watched over. '

Child Article Watchis quite broad. Maybe too broad, I dunno. It would or could include, I guess, all kinds articles relating to child development, children in third world countries, childhood in history, etc. Whether that's too broad I don't know.

Or maybe something else. Or maybe it's OK as it is. Comments welcome. Herostratus 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I only joined as I was invited to, as I watch a lot of the articles concerned with Age of consent laws, which are sometimes the target of those with agendas (in both directions). The name does put people off, and we've had at least one person join this project thinking that it was a pedophile activism group. So perhaps a name change is a good idea. It should come from the core purpose of the project, which is to balance POV articles concerning paraphilia and bring them to a scholarly and encyclopedic status(?).
Paraphilia is a better word than pedophilia, even though its scope is far greater, it is less emotive in society and isn't such a loaded term. It also leans into my interest moreso, anything that is against the law could be considered paraphilia. Since we aren't only watching articles but also lists, disabiguation pages and so on perhaps content is a better noun here. Do we need "watch", "police", "patrol" or similar in the name at all? Sounds a bit like we're setting ourselves up as an authority. We already have arbitrators on Wikipedia.
How about WikiProject Paraphilia content Only problen is WP:PC is already taken. --Monotonehell 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. From child sexuality, you can expand in two directions: more toward paraphiliae (paraphilias?) or more toward children-related stuff... I note for instance that the article Child labor is now tagged as disputed. Apparently some of the Ayn Randian types gravitate in general toward articles on children whether related to sexuality or not, I think they are generally discomfited by the notion that children might be afforded special protections... enh, probably best to just leave it as it is... a change could be made to Child Sexuality Article Watch or something (C-SAW), which would probably be more accurate and broader than the current name... I'm not sure if its worth making that change, as it doesn't really change anything about the project... maybe though. Herostratus 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL I love C-SAW! Originally I joined this group as it was cursory to the Age of consent pages, several pages of interest are cross linked. Yes we do have to decide if we want to focus on child sexuality, paraphiliae (I'm a latin snob) in general or something else. Child labour is pushing the envelope a bit. I'm in favour of removing the "pedophilia" from the project's title. Considering the "troubles" the project title has had in the past. But of course you'll probably have editors complaining that the term "Child sexuality" is inherently POV... gah. --Monotonehell 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Csaw.jpg

And you could have a better logo, for instance the one shown here Although this one isn't too good. There are better images in Microsoft clipart, but we can't use use that, even though the only restriction is that we not allow anyone to take the image and put it into a clipart collection when is then sold -- which obviously would never happen, but it's still a restriction... a seesaw connotes both childhood and balance, which is interesting... Herostratus 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Csaw60.png

Maybe something like these? Just playing around in inkscape. --Monotonehell 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change. Most of the articles presently on the watchlist aren't about child sexuality at all, but about adult sexuality and adult political activity. A big wikiproject on child sexuality would be cool (and "C-SAW" is a cute name that should be used for something just because of the fun opportunities for logo design), but it seems pretty different from what PAW has up to this point been doing, which is mainly concerned with adult pedophiles and pedophile advocacy.
Also, wasn't this project name the final outcome of a huge and fractious debate? Why stir the pot again? DanB†DanD 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Which watchlist are you looking at? --Monotonehell 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that a snark? When I click Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Watchlist, I see very little that's relevant to children's experience of sex or their sexual development, and a lot that's relevant to adult attitudes directed at children. Do you really look at the list and see something different? That's an interesting difference in perspective. DanB†DanD 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No I was seriously wondering which list you were refering to. There is a distinction between actual child sexuality and what adults project onto children, but isn't the point of such paraphilia that they have their own ideas about child sexulaity? Couldn't we say that this project is looking to bring sence and NPOV to articles that have been constructed to pervert accepted ideas of child sexuality? Or is that stretching? We're concerned with both adult and child sexuality; there's articles dealing with both on the PAW:watchlist. How about Child-adult Sexulaity Article Watch? :) --Monotonehell 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BoyChat

This article should come under scrutiny. Editors (myself included) currently come from two ideologically widely opposing sides, and there is much weasel language and agenda. Please help to make it as NPOV as possible. Clayboy 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the revision history and the article oscillates back and forth, often links which support its verifiability and reliablity (reliable secondary sources) are removed under the flag of NPOV. Unfortunately these links are removed by editors who seem to be have a pro-pedo bias. So essentially the pro-pedo biased editors set the article up for deletion by removing reliable sources and thus they destroy the verifiability of the whole article. This article is getting constantly getting neutered and filled with hedge words. The anti-pedo biased seem to be much less subtle in their edits and often violate NPOV and WP:V. That said, external links and references to media sources like the Williamette Weekly should be included if links to Perverted Justice and Free Spirits are maintained in the article. --Quirex 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The afd resulted in a delete. The article was taken to near aceptable conditions several times but subsequent edits kept bringing it down. --Monotonehell 11:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What a disappointing failure of the process! Sorry I didn't get involved. DanB†DanD 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm unsure where I stand on that one. On one hand it did seem to be a reasonable subject for an article, but on the other hand the article could never be stabalised. Once it was brought into line certain elements did their best to unstabalise it. I'm not sure who Afd-ed it but I bet it was a last ditch atempt to silence someone, which ever "side" it came from. Shame that there's such disruptive elements editing WP. --Monotonehell 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't vote in the debate. I did make a comment about how a delete vote would be justified, but I didn't actually make a delete vote, and if I had voted, I would have voted to keep it. I don't see how it would be harmful or bad to have the article exist, provided it was kept in reasonable shape, which after all should be possible. I'm a little disappointed in the close. By votes alone it oughtn't have been deleted, but the closing admin used his discretion to accept that the delete arguments were stronger. I don't see that, and I hope that's all it was and not just moral disaprobation. I dunno... anyone want to buff up their nonpartisan credentials by taking it to WP:DRV? Herostratus 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(Undent)I don't think volume of votes should be a priority in Afds, after all WP:NOT democracy. The Afd should be decided upon weight of the arguments, the volume of votes could be used to sway a borderline argument. The question therefore remains; where did the quality of argument leave us?

Looking at the arguments in the Afd they can be summarised; I guess we should ignore all the "The anti/pedophiles groups are conspiring to edit this article" arguments as a quick google of the terms shows a call for arms from both sides of of the debate. Also ignoring all the "me too" votes...

We are left with; Delete:

  • Verifiability contra
  • Notability contra
  • Self promotion / pedophile activism / WP shouldn't give pedophiles legitimacy

Keep:

  • Verifiability pro
  • Notability pro
  • Delete votes are only concerned with existence of topic not content

I can see no compelling arguments either way. They all seem to be arguing at cross purposes, citing the same guidlines and interprting it their way. I probably would have ruled a keep but improve and semi-protect with all edits going through the talk page. But that would have been a lot of effort. The way I see it, this thing exists, isn't transient, is the subject of conjecture and therefore is notable. Knowledge is knowledge, WP:not evil works both ways, we can't bury our heads in the sand upon objectional material - that's censorship. --Monotonehell 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, can we ask the admin who made the judgement their reasoning first? --Monotonehell 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Herostratus 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No response. I feel torn. On the one hand, I expected my experience on this project to be helping to redact POV from both "sides"... I expected a lot of uninformed anti-pedophile material to be dealt with... but there hasn't been much of that, at all; it's almost all been from the other "side"... I feel more like just an anti-child-sex-normalization patroller than someone working both sides of the aisle... and I remain concerned about the danger of Wikipedia's reputation as "Wikipedophilia". And the existance of this article doesn't really help that. On the other hand, (1) in my opinion the article should exist, if you're looking strictly at notability and (2) I want to be fair and all. So I dunno. Herostratus 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Damn. I am similarly torn. In principle this article should exist but in practice it had a tenuous existence. Neither "side" would leave it be. It seems the anti-p groups are just as disruptive as the pro-p groups. It seems that they work on the principle that if you don't talk about it - it doesn't exist. Not very academic. I think the problem was that WP:V could never be completely satisfied in this case. I guess we should just let this one go. Don't be disheartened. One thing I've found is the disruptive sorts tends to lose interest after a while and eventualy bias can be balanced out if you ride out the shit storms. --Monotonehell 09:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
During the whole BoyChat AFD fiasco the perverted justice people were being pretty awful. That said, the boychatters were using neologisms like minor attracted individuals. More importantly the article and topic easily met WP:WEB and WP:RS and WP:V, silly stuff like WP:NOTEVIL we used to actually delete it. What was disturbing is that the admins who argued for deletion did nothing against the editors who were abusing NPOV and damaging the article. --Quirex 16:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there was an element that was perverting the whole process. The problem before the Afd was that when the article was put to some form of NPOV and was in a reasonable state it was soon edited to buggery again. I think I did a quick hatchet job at one point, then it was buggered again, then herostratus did a much better edit, only to have it messed with again. Who raised the Afd anyway? Was it a last ditch attempt by perverted justice to get it deleted? --Monotonehell 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Herostratus; maybe your question at User talk:Yanksox was too cryptic? It didn't directly call for any action to be taken. Also it's now been autoarchived by W.bot and Yanksox hasn't been contributing since the 5th. --Monotonehell 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Barnstar?

Enough people have worked on this project at one time or another that it'd be reasonable to have a project barnstar, I guess. But uh it's tough coming up with one... how about this: Herostratus 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

lol Sacrilege! I have a no barnstars please policy, but I will not deny one to those who want one. --Monotonehell 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, it's extremely strange looking... but I find it mildly amusing. Of course it's based on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States... Herostratus 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that NAMBLA is run by the Illuminati? DanB†DanD 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably. Anyway, it's just a bit of fun, and gave me a chance to practice with The Gimp graphics editor. It's not really a very good graphic, but that's the best I can do... anyway, I added it to the project page, and will now award one to DanB_DanD, and to myself for good measure, not to Monotonehell since he doesn't use barnstars... I'm not sure who else is active right now, but if anyone is contributing measurably to the project they should get one too, so if you see anyone who deserves one give it to them... Herostratus 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Virtue is its own reward, *flutters eyelashes* --Monotonehell 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Statutory rape

Since we seem to have independently returned our attentions to this article; I was wondering if we might revisit the idea of merging this article with Age of consent. Previously the Stat rape article was too full of POV and other sillyness to be successfully merged (sometime early 2006) so I placed a section into AoC with a "main article" wikilink, until such time as things calmed down on stat rape. Perhaps after we review the content for we might revisit the idea of a merge. Unless after such a review the article warrants a long discussion. --Monotonehell 09:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

tagging

Editor Chris has tagged Lolicon, Category:Murdered children, Oakland County Child Killer, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review. I'm in discussion now with Chris over whether he wants to participate actively in the project. If he's not, I think these should all be untagged, unless someone else is working on them. If if is, I still have serious qualms about tagging Category:Murdered children and Oakland County Child Killer, and perhaps National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, although the other articles are OK. Reason being, I'm unsure what connection there is between this project and (say) the Oakland County Child Killer (whoever he is), who may or may not be a pedophile but the operative work here is killer, perhaps this article would be better served by WikiProject Murderers or whatever. Right? Herostratus 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. The blurring of lines between academic definitions of such things is unhelpful at least and I hate to think what at most. --Monotonehell 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. Well anyway I don't think Chris is going to sign on, so he oughtn't have tagged any articles, although he was trying to be helpful. All removed. Herostratus 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Pedophilia Wikipedians watchlist

Proposal. A confirmed and suspected pedophile wikipedian and IP address watchlist within wikiproject pedophilia article watch.
3 ways to confirm:

  • Article POV Contributions in tagged articles.
  • Comments made within talk pages.
  • Self-proclaimed Pedophile.


3 ways to remove user name or IP address:

  • Prove the claim is unfounded.
  • Provides documentation.
  • Stop Contributing to wikipedia with the user name or IP address.

This would provide a way to track new articles contributions from confirmed pedophiles. --Masterpedia 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, no. First of all, pedophilia is an affliction, and persons with this affliction are welcome to edit Wikipedia. Like all other Wikipedians, they're expected to check their personal biases at the door. Second of all, the POV problem is not necessarily from pedophiles but from child-sex-normalizers, many of whom (apparently) are not pedophiles but have assorted other motivations for their POV. Third of all, there are no bad editors, only bad edits. Editors may be blocked, blocked indefinitely, or banned for appropriate reasons; but if they are not, they are not they are not they are assumed to enjoy the same good will and rights as any other editor. I believe that it is expressly forbidden to keep "bad lists" of other editors. Herostratus 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More ways to remove user name or IP address:

  • Answers "no" to the question "are you now, or have you ever been a pedophile?"
  • Sinks when subjected to deep water.
  • Goes promptly to the back of the bus when asked to.

No thanks. Clayboy 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Next you'll be advocating pitchforks and flaming torch parties. Witchhunts never did anything any good. You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works (or is supposed to). --Monotonehell 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea” -- Jimbo Wales, (Monotonehell 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't mean to pile up on you there, Masterpedia. I appreciate your thoughts and energy directed toward the project and certainly look forward to any future ideas, it's just that this one has too many problems to initiate. Cheers, Herostratus 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Wikipedia is not the moral police. If someone is a pedophile, let their local law enforcement agencies worry about it. Also, pedophilia can also refer to solely the attraction, not the action.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is A Bad Thing. Far better to identify people who chronically edit main articles with a strong non-neutral POV, whatever that POV happens to be. If a person is a rabid pedophile activist or has a rabid kill-the-pedos tongue in his Talk page, but he can keep his main-space edits NPOV, then I don't care. I participated in the BoyChat AfD and there were a few editors on both sides worthy of close scrutiny over NPOV issues. There were many more on both sides who edited well. Dfpc 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where were we with these lists?

I remember a while ago we were looking into converting these questionable lists into categories. Looking at them now there's a few entries that may or may not be vandalism (hard to tell sometimes). Do people agree that we should convert these lists to a category(ies?), add the cat templates to the listed articles and see what the editors camping on those pages think of that? That way people who are involved with the "outed" topics can have input into whether they should be tagged thusly or if they believe it unsubstantiated. Think on this: If these lists were lists of people instead of fictional works would our stance be different? --Monotonehell 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Crackdown

See [1]. Christopher Connor 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Eep. I will look into this. My initial reaction is:
    1. No reason why a pedophile can't be a good editor. Just as a communist etc. can be a good editor, provided of course that they check any idealogies at the door as all Wikipedians must.
    2. People should never be blocked for what they are, only for what they do, that is, their edits.
    3. On the other hand...
      1. Identifing oneself openly as a pedophile is a huge red flag, and I would think that anyone who does so must expect a negative reaction. So why do it, unless one is on a mission to prove that This Cruel World Doesn't Understand Me, which is not what the Wikipedia is for.
      2. Because identifying oneself as a pedophile is such a red flag, it's a godsend for trolls. Identifying oneself as a pedophile is a great way to create disruptive drama, a troll's purpose. Actual pedophiles should understand this and recognize that for this reason it may be necessary to prohibit all self-identification as a pedophile to prevent the trolling use of such.
      3. For political reasons, the Foundation may feel that the presence of self-identified pedophiles as editors may not be in the best interests of the Wikipedia. We live in a political world, man is a political animal, and this matters; and the Wikipedia is not for Brave Challenges To The Dominant Paradigm or whatever.
      4. Keeping in mind the above three points, add the notion that generally speaking any self-identification which is not really germane to one's Wikipedia work is at best pointless, therefore one should not self-identify as a pedophile.

However, no one should be blocked for what they are. That's just wrong. Instead, they should at most be asked to remove their self-idenfication, noncompliance being followed by the removal by an outside party, reversion being followed by a warning, and only after further reversion should a block occur. I will see what can be done about this. Herostratus 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They were blocked, as you suggest, for placing red flags on their user pages and for otherwise trolling. Editors should not be banned for what they believe, but if they openly advocate for a disreputable cause then they serve to bring disrepute onto the project. As Wikipedia is intended to be an educational resource the presence of user advocating pedophilia has special sensitivity. -Will Beback · † · 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What "otherwise trolling"? I was under the impression that User:Silent War and User:Clayboy were at least reasonably good editors (I don't know User:Zanthalon offhand). Do you have any diffs showing trolling? It must have been pretty egregious to be banned out of hand. Herostratus 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Herostratus 100% and more. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The WP:BAN article contains the line: Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct. Alas, nobody has dared yet add the needed qualifier, "or else immediately and without warning, in cases where Wales has had his knobs seriously twisted." But you don't really expect the man to follow the rules he sets down for others, do you? Power corrupts. It's so easy when you're the owner. You don't have to argue, and you don't have to justify. Just hit the button. You're king of your own world. Wheeee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.248.135 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Oh, horsehockey. Anybody who self-identifies as a pedophile had better expect rough treatment. Don't want to be kicked around? Don't tell me about your universally-loathed paraphilia, kthx. But still, in my opinion it was way overreacting to summarily ban them. I am opposed to that, definitely. Herostratus 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here I am, "arguing" for pedophilia. Not something I ever expected, even as devil's advocate. But may I point out that "pedophilia" has a pretty damned loose definition? And that in high school, all normal people (including you and me) were pedophiles, by at least some definitions of the word, since we were all underage? And were saved from that allegedly totally morally degraded state only by some ticks of the clock and pages on the callender, not particularly by any change in our basic feelings and attitudes? So have a little more empathy. If that girl who stole my heart when we were both 16 still existed in that state, and high school, I'd still be powerfully attracted to her-- even though I'm now 49. But I'm not a pervert. I'm a perfectly normal, sane man. But I'm a rigorously HONEST one, too. Which causes a great deal of hassle for me in this hypocritical world I live in. SBHarris 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My suspicion is that if they ask the ArbCom if they can return with new identities that aren't so "in-your-face" they would be given that opportunity. -Will Beback · † · 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping their bans were based on conduct and not perception. But at the same time I don't believe that any editor should promote any cause or affiliation on their user pages let alone in article space. I include all causes and affiliations in this from paraphilia to Christianity to political leanings to being a member of the local stamp collecting group. Welcome to Wikipedia, check all your baggage at the door. --Monotonehell 06:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Does that include your sports fanhood, muscial tastes, interests in scouting or guns or insects? And all information about vocation and avocations, which obviously are interest-driven? I'm afraid you haven't come to grips with the reality that my interests are your "causes and affiliations" and HIS "manias and obscessions." And (even more) the fact that an enclyopedia like this is totally "baggage" (interest) driven, since nobody here is paid. If we didn't have a mania for the topics, we wouldn't care in the first place, woundn't bother with the hassle of creation and maintennence, and nothing here would exist at all. SBHarris 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep all of those. Most editors may be interest driven, but that doesn't mean they need to wave flags about it on their talk pages. You notice that my user pages are all Wikibusiness. Just because I'm not interested in a topic doesn't mean I'm not willing to research it and contribute. For example I have no interest in Pedophila or age of consent matters and yet I signed up to this project on invitation and I took onboard the Age of consent issues because I saw the need for balance in those articles and I happened to now how to access and reference legislation for several countries.
Not that I expect anyone to remove all of their userpage decoration any time soon, I realise what you say about interest driven edits is quite true. However, NPOV is important and a lot of flag waving can get in the way of that. --Monotonehell 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah well. I think most of us probably agree that the solution should have been to just remove the offending material one way or another. I have written to Jimbo and the ArbCom asking for the users to be reinstated. I don't suppose that that will happen, though. Well its not a huge big deal; I suppose those editors can just create new accounts if they want to. Technically that is not allowed but I suppose we could turn a blind eye. Herostratus 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am disgusted with Will Beback's bigoted idealogical views. Soon we will blocking communists, sexual deviants, handicapped, and others because they portray "negatively" on the "reputation" of this free encyclopedia that supposedly anyone can edit. ~ UBeR 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped? -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't edited anything here since Jimbo blocked me for a day for daring to utter the word "camwhore" on the Justin Berry talk page. Nonetheless, I do stick my two cents worth in occasionally on talk and user pages. Jimbo once said that if something is true, but believed only by a small minority, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I myself have at times characterized Wikipedia as nothing but "a large cache of urban myth and conventional wisdom." For undisputable things, like provable math and science, it does a pretty good job, but for social issues and ideology, I find the National Enquirer, which also tells most of the people what most of the people want to believe, about as accurate.
I therefore think that what appears to be a blanket ban on mentioning sexual feelings that "make Wikipedia look bad," supported by Jimbo, is pretty much consistant with the way Wikipedia usually behaves. Like "Don't ask, don't tell", I don't agree with it, and of course, I think it would be nice if Jimbo had a bit more spine.
Making a big uproar when you hear speech you don't like, and then claiming it is the fault of the speaker, is known in legal circles as "The Heckler's Veto." Again, it would be nice if Wikipedia blamed trolls and vigilantes for their own behavior, and not the people they are attacking, but that gets back to the spine thing I mentioned earlier. Hermitian 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL communists are the same as pedophiles? LOL!!! LOL!!!--Cerejota 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL similes are the same as equations? LOL!! LOL!!--Jillium 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL Learn what a simile is first. It doesn't hold together as analogy either. To compare the teo is comparing apples and oranges. Being a communist is not banned in the State of Florida -re: WP:CENSOR-(Although it has briefly in the past), whereas pedophilia has been banned since things can be banned in our society. ANd there is a reason for why one has be "legalized" while the other remains illegal: one is speech protected by the first ammendment, the other is a paraphilia. Communists in general follow societal rules for debate, and above all are consensual in their behavior. Pedophiles are not. Only a pedophile seeking to legitimize its plight, or a stuck-in-the-past Neo-McCarthyite could consider this a valid analogy. As to relevance: read this thread and see this is repeated. At best it represent a certain broken logic, at worse a form of slander.--Cerejota 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Your whole argument is strawman, The original poster made no analogies or similes. They simply pointed out that no matter what an editor's beliefs, feelings or similar qualities; as long as they check them at the door and edit in a NOPV fashion they can still be a good editor. Just as a communist can edit an article on capitalism as long as they edit it without POV; a bank robber can edit an article on justice; and a pedophile can edit an article on pedophilia; in the same way. --Monotonehell 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"LOL Learn what a simile is first"
It clearly was a simile.
"Being a communist is not banned in the State of Florida "
Nor is being a paedophile...
"whereas pedophilia has been banned since things can be banned in our society."
Paedophilia is not banned anywhere in the United States of America and it never has been. I don't know of anywhere it is banned, actually; Iran, maybe? -Jillium 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Iran? SqueakBox 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Quietly believing in communist theories has never been illegal, only acting on those theories has been. Wishing to murder someone has never been illegal, only acting on that wish. And yes, pedophhilia has never been illegal, only acting on that desire. Even wishing to disrupt Wikipedia is not a bannable offense, but actions or comments that tend to disrupt the project are cause for banning. This isn't a free-speech forum. -Will Beback · † · 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Project member is a suspected pedophile

There is a project member (I wont name them for now) who in email explictly admitted to me that:

  • they "would have sex with anyone 4-40 years old"
  • they are "sexually attracted to 4 year old girls"
  • if a 4 year old asked to have sex with them, they "wouldnt simply say no"

I have the emails to send as attachment to anyone who wants them. This member has also went around and requested pictures relating to child porn. It wasnt surprising when I communicated in email to them and found out their true preferences which they obviouslly dont want to make public. I believe that such a member should be blocked and reported to police. I just wanted to let you all know about this situation and that there may be editors like this in editing pedophilia articles and what do you think should be done? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How long have you had this hobby of emailing people to find out their "true preferences?" Have you ever talked to a mental health professional about it? I mean, 50 years ago it was suspected "Commies and Pinkos." Now it's suspected "Pedophiles." Yawn. Every neighborhood has a busybody, but now thanks to the Internet, they can all network and reinforce each others delusions.
It doesn't matter who edits Wikipedia, because all Wikipedia content needs to be from verifiable sources, and NPOV. Hermitian 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For goodness' sake calm down both of you. Matt's question - do we allow/encourage out pedophiles to be associated with this project? - is at least reasonable to ask. There are political angles to this, after all. But I think that Hermitian's response of "It doesn't matter who edits Wikipedia, because all Wikipedia content needs to be from verifiable sources, and NPOV." is spot on, although most of the rest of the post is pretty rude.

I would note, however, that Jimbo and the ArbCom appear to not agree with this; witness that the de facto response to three editors proclaiming themselves to be pedophiles got them banned, and their talk pages protected so one can't even send them a message. And not only that. Apparently no public communications having to do with pedophiles or suspected pedophiles are allowed, and may only be made through the ArbCom mailing list - which is pretty useless, since for almost all of us it can be written to but not read to

Anyway my reading of the whole thing is that it is a Very Bad Idea to accuse anyone of anything, and to go to the ArbCom mailing list with issues. My guess is that any arbitration involving pedophiles or suspected/accused pedophiles will be done by the ArbCom acting as a Star Chamber. I'm not sure that's bad, considering the potential for energy-wasting drama around the whole issue.

In fact I'm not even sure that this conversation is kosher in the eyes of the ArbCom. But the ArbCom is a judicial body, not a legislative or executive one, although Jimbo and The Foundation are.

But I would suggest that we all drop the matter and consider and concentrate only on the edits that editors make, bearing in mind that our response can be colored by outside knowledge. If I know an editor is a communist, I take a closer look than normal at his edits to communism-related articles; that's only human nature and common sense. Herostratus 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case it might actually be helpful for pedophiles to identify themselves, so their edit-biases can be compensated for. And closet flaming liberals, too, I might add ;).

I suspect (have no direct evidence for) this whole thing is driven by Wikipedia's fear of 3rd party legal liability in being accused of serving as a social networking site, if somebody finds out that somebody underage has used it to contact some self-professed pedophile. That's about it. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is a terrible social networking site, and there are so many other far better ones, that I can't imagine Wikipedia would have much legal exposure before they the system gets through figuring how to deal with this on myspace and a zillion other chatforums plus Usenet. So Wikipedia's role as a target for the legal system is WAAAY down the line, behind the whole rest of the internet.

I wonder if Wikipedia cares if users self-identify in other socially unacceptable roles, like illegal drug user (druggie), homosexual, transexual, formerly convicted criminal (think of the many categories), chronic highway speed law exceder, etc, etc? How about if you self-identify as heterosexual? Where to draw the line? Wikipedia obviously disagrees that sexual orientation per-se is like handedness or haircolor or race. Or perhaps that it is, but that it would okay to put down your lefthandedness or nationality or age, but that sexual orientation (if not the common one, anyway) is off-limits, as "too much information." Which is odd, since Essjay got away with saying he was "gay as Christmas" for quite awhile, and Wikipedia is perfectly willing to record bio information on criminally-convicted acting-pedophiles, if it's well-sourced. So I'm left to conclude that it really is the legal liability issue for editors mentioned above, that is driving this whole thing. SBHarris 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is all okay with me. I just wanted to notify you all of what I knew since you're the experts on this topic more than me. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Temporary watch request for new article: False allegation of child sexual abuse

I created this article and am consulting knowledgeable people to help flesh it out. Some of these people are pedophiles.

Please keep an eye on this for the next few weeks for NPOV issues. I see no need to publicly tag the article.

If you have your own ideas on improving the article, please contribute. Likewise, if you know any other experts, invite them to join in. Dfpc 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. Voice of Britain 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trilogy of activists listed for deletion

All three founders of the PNVD have been listed for deletion. Let's reach a consensus here. Jim♥Burton 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here? No, they are on afd and need to remain there, SqueakBox 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a mannerism of my prose. Don't worry Jim♥Burton 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap

Apparently Jim Burton has been permabanned by User:Fred Bauder of the ArbCom. My understanding is that the reason for this was the contents of his userpage (archive here). Hmmmm. Again: I thought that the solution to an offending userpage was to request, then force, the removal of the offending material, not freaken ban the person for life.

We ordinary editors can't even read about this. I suppose it's thus a double-secret ban. Furthermore, WP:BAN states that in the past, Arbcom bans have never been for more than one year, so obviously this policy is out of date if we're now going to be seeing secret Arbcom-generated "permabans." That sounds even nastier than "indefinitely and *potentially* permanently banned," which is what you read about in WP:BAN for the communal ban and the Jimbo-ban, and which appears now to have been superceeded for certain high crimes (doubtless involving "children," (definition left vague) else the discussion wouldn't be HERE). Do we have a wiki sentence of life without possibility of parole, per ArbCom, now? There's a certain irony in all of this, from a community which supports aggressive bios of unwilling seminotables, all in the name of openness of information. SBHarris 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, political considerations. Herostratus 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno man. You can be a Nazi holocaust denier and at least still get your day in court on Wikipedia, but not Jim Burton. It kind of takes the fun out of it if the referee just occasionally shoots members of the opposing team... Herostratus 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter which has been settled on easily, and we shouldn't assume that it's a step taken lightly. It's a bit frustrating because it's all happening out of sight, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. While editing disputes may sometimes seem like contests we do have a purpose here. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim Burton did a great job on many articles, this is a big loss for wikipedia considering how few there are who has the knowledge and can stay neutral in these very difficult topics. I guess they will be comming for the rest soon enough. V.☢.B 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Keeping these articles neutral is what I am editing here for, SqueakBox 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Burton neutral? Uh I don't think so. He was a problem as an editor, and if he had left on his own accord that would be fine with. He did play by the rules though. His punishment was severe. How much this had to do with his editing and how much with his userpage I don't know. Herostratus 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

re deletion of editors from the roster

User:Addhoc, who I don't personally recall meeting and who is not a member, removed the names of two banned editors. I don't agree with this action. The editors didn't behave in a manner to have them drummed out of the project. Their status per the Wikipedia in general is not necessarily germane. I restored them, but with a strikethrough as a compromise. Herostratus 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case you could consider reinstating user:Silent War, again with a strikethough for an indefinitely blocked account. Addhoc 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I dunno. I guess if they're banned they can't be members anymore. Strikethroughs just look weird. I don't like the idea of Unpersons going down the Memory Hole though. Herostratus 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the commotion

Having been directed here by another concerned user, it is easy to see that the spread of misinfornation and subjective opinion on to these pages is out of control. Now that this partisanship has peaked with censorship and witchhunts, I have decided to get involved. Ignorance and misinformation will not win, and my participation is intended to demonstrate that. --βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bow Ty created an account at 03.35 today and may be an SPA, SqueakBox 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith! V.☢.B 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I am, just letting people know, SqueakBox 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you mean Jim, then no. Jim is a friend, and the main person from an online community which pointed me towards the P-A-W. Although I have edited before (as a different user), I've only had a short time to get used to these articles, so hopefully, Jim will give me some pointers, especially if he is allowed back.
He's told me stuff about you that I couldn't risk repeating. So I won't. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Are you threatening me? My contribs are puiblicly available and Jim knows nothing else about me, SqueakBox 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for good faith. I see the pro-paedophiles tactics are getting dirtier and dirtier, somewhat appropriate for these folk I guess, SqueakBox 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows they edit from different ips in different countries, so they probably are different people. Fred Bauder 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please stop deleting stuff from my talk page. Secondly, Jim has only told me about the goings on at wikipedia, and nothing else. He related them in rather graphic terms, thats all. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and what tells you that I'm pro pedophile simply for wanting balanced articles which don't sound too emotional? If you want the facts, you can discuss how my relationship with Jim effects my ideals about man-boy etc, on my talk page. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This brings to mind the slogan of H.Y.D.R.A.: strike one of us down and another will arise (yes I know what a Hydra is). Things are not always as easy and simple as we might like. Herostratus 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Archive_3&oldid=1086384823"