Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch: Difference between revisions
Herostratus (talk | contribs) →Wikipe-tan as Lolicon: gone again |
|||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:::::::Well, cheer up, it's back again. -[[User:Jmh123|Jmh123]] 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::Well, cheer up, it's back again. -[[User:Jmh123|Jmh123]] 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Gone again. I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped or until the artist removes the puzzle pieces, whichever comes first. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::Gone again. I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped or until the artist removes the puzzle pieces, whichever comes first. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::So, simply put, Herostratus wants to delete the image because he doesn't like it. That's all there is to it, I haven't seen you come up with any GOOD excuses for why the image should be deleted. So, keep the image. It's been added to every lolicon article (except the Japanese) anyway, so why delete it? Kohikki worked on an image just to improve the lolicon article, and I don't want to see his effort going to waste just because someone doesn't like it. --[[User:Anonyymi|Anonyymi]] 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:06, 4 June 2007
- Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 2006 to February 28
- Talk Page - Archive 2 - Febuary 29 2006 to April 25 2007
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)
- I can never tell when you are joking and when you are serious. V.☢.B 07:34, 19 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)
- He was banned because they thought he was a pedophile, or supported pedophilia. End of story. V.☢.B 07:34, 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)
- I thought you were exaggerating but I've changed my mind. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If just wikipedia had the same rules for all users then much of the problems would never arise. Now I must go do more damage control because some users never get banned no matter how bad they behave. V.☢.B 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have the same rules for all users, SqueakBox 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- In theory maybe but not in practice. V.☢.B 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
constructive editors requested
there is presently a dispute at child sexual abuse, and though i'm not completely sure what the dispute is over since the editors there have been less than forthcoming, i would appreciate if any constructive editors could help me in neutralizing the article. special knowledge in the area of child sexual abuse is definitely a plus. ~[[kinda]] 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Attack of the clones?
The last weeks have certainly seen an energetic effort on the part of editors pushing pro-pedophile-activist POV. Is there a concentrated externally-coordinated effort to push POV going on here? It has been suggested and seems likely. At the very least, one user (Voice of Britain) has been accused of sockpuppetry and been indef blocked. (And expelled from the project.)
As a result of all this activity, some big guns, ArbCom members and old hands, have taken an interest. I don't think its any surprise that the approach likely to be used by these folks is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, involving blocks and deletions at whatever level is necessary.
This is probably a good thing. We have to remember that Wikipedia is an extremely popular and, therefore, influential site. I started up this project when I found that the #1 result for a Google search on "child sexuality" was our article, which was a mess of pro-pedophile-activist POV at the time. So we have an obligation to the world to make sure that toxic POV doesn't pollute our articles, using whatever means are necessary. Herostratus 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- At one point recently folks were using BoyChat to recruit involvement in Wikipedia. In one case a poster even impersonated an "opposing" Wikipedia editor. However the Wikipedia discussions apparently have moved to less public forums. Regardless, it's important that we keep trying to get this material right. Like it or not, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information on many topics, including this one. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of which....Can someone with more experience with deletion protocol take a look at this page, Hey_There,_Kids? It's the first edit by new user Viper2k6. Thanks. ETA: Taken care of. Thanks, SqueakBox. -Jmh123 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
in re: Warriors for innocence and LiveJournal incident
Could I ask people from this group to please take a look at the article Warriors for innocence & the associated section of the LiveJournal article LiveJournal Account suspension controversy.
Please note that I am just someone who came to this article when the actions of WFI et. al. had an effect on a small "Survivor" Group's Website - so I know little, have NO attachments and have NO axe to grind. I was just looking for information myself and what I found was a lot of talk-page drama on one article and a messy stub on the other. Since I wanted info anyway, I looked lots of things up and attempted to put down what I found in proper fashion.
But the incessant wrangling going on over topics I never HEARD of before yesterday, makes me feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole and it's clear that people who know what they are talking about should look into it instead of me. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your hard work on this topic. While I think the article should be merged with the LJ article, that's not because of any editing failure on your part. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I thought LiveJournal Account suspension controversy was excellent. I don't know why the not-neutral and insufficiently-sourced tags were on it; I didn't find either to be accurate IMO and so removed them. Whether Warriors for innocence deserves its own article is kind of debatable, but it might. You did fine work and I appreciate it. Herostratus 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan as Lolicon
Wikipedia now has its very own Lolicon image to illustrate that article: [1]. I and one other argued on that "talk" page that it could be construed as implying endorsement by Wikipedia, but others disagreed. It was pointed out by a sysop, Merovingian, that there is precendent, as with a sexual fan service image here: Fan_service. But that image is not a child, nor is it particularly sexual. It was argued by several other registered editors that the previous image (still present) was not sufficiently childlike or attractive. The new image was temporarily deleted over questions of its origin/copyright, but Merovingian has just re-added it. Maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a regular viewer of anime, but the image is creepy to me, and definitely not attractive. It also felt strange to have a Wikipedia sysop essentially strong-arming it in over objections, based on supporting arguments that the old image--which is still there--is ugly, and that someone was nice enough to draw a better one for us. This comment [2], "the copyright issue arises just because some prudes think that the image is too explicit and offensive" was made by an anon who just signed on in the last couple of days, one of at least three new anons who fought to push this through. The image was restored with this comment: "There seems to be enough wiki-side support for the current image to suggest to me that it should not be removed," which if you count the three new anons is probably true. -Jmh123 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the image on the basis that we do not include elements from the Foundation logos in kiddie cheescake pics, period. If the author removes those and gets an OTRS ticket proving his authorship, then hmmmm. I guess we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it. Herostratus 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Getting the logos out is primary to me (although I'm still not thrilled with the image). I checked, and the three newbies are from Finland, Antwerp, and Brussels, so I'd guess there was a parallel conversation going on somewhere else. -Jmh123 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- ETA: I think your edit was superceded by another simultaneous removal on the basis of copyright, so your edit note isn't there. The Foundation logo issue may come up again if copyright is settled. If you could leave a note on Lolicon:Talk that might forestall another debate over that aspect. -Jmh123 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's back. The individual who drew it has followed procedure in uploading it this time, and Merovingian has readded it. -Jmh123 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- And I deleted it again. I'll have a chat with Merovingian Herostratus 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that it's very gone, gone from Commons as well. Wikipedia should thank you too--this one had PR nightmare written all over it, if not worse. Thanks. -Jmh123 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's a shame. It looked like a good example of what lolicon usually looks like. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, cheer up, it's back again. -Jmh123 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gone again. I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped or until the artist removes the puzzle pieces, whichever comes first. Herostratus 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- So, simply put, Herostratus wants to delete the image because he doesn't like it. That's all there is to it, I haven't seen you come up with any GOOD excuses for why the image should be deleted. So, keep the image. It's been added to every lolicon article (except the Japanese) anyway, so why delete it? Kohikki worked on an image just to improve the lolicon article, and I don't want to see his effort going to waste just because someone doesn't like it. --Anonyymi 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gone again. I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped or until the artist removes the puzzle pieces, whichever comes first. Herostratus 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, cheer up, it's back again. -Jmh123 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's a shame. It looked like a good example of what lolicon usually looks like. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that it's very gone, gone from Commons as well. Wikipedia should thank you too--this one had PR nightmare written all over it, if not worse. Thanks. -Jmh123 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- And I deleted it again. I'll have a chat with Merovingian Herostratus 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's back. The individual who drew it has followed procedure in uploading it this time, and Merovingian has readded it. -Jmh123 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)