Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
"Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)" | "Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)" | ||
| − | The need to attack other editors at the same time. | + | * The need to attack other editors at the same time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=226870434], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=prev&oldid=226865920] |
| − | |||
* Pro-pederasty collaboration (canvassing?) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=226828851] | * Pro-pederasty collaboration (canvassing?) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=prev&oldid=226828851] | ||
* upset about not getting the requisite pro pederasty editor support? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=prev&oldid=226828539] | * upset about not getting the requisite pro pederasty editor support? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=prev&oldid=226828539] | ||
Revision as of 08:06, 21 July 2008
Wikipaedophilia is the home from home for pro-paedophile activists (PPA's). "The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." [1].
- "The Wikipedia accounts 'DPeterson' and 'RalphLender' have been banned for a period of one year. These accounts, both operated by Arthur Becker-Weidman, an attachment therapist notorious for pushing his unsupported views on a range of subjects including paedophilia and child sexual abuse. His other sockpuppets (MarkWood, JonesRD, SamDavidson, and JohnsonRon) have been blocked indefinitely." [2]
See Dpeterson
Wikipedia page on Wikisposure.
July 2008 ANI discussion of an administrator who deleted the appalling article Historical_pederastic_couples.
"Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)"
- The need to attack other editors at the same time. [3], [4]
- Pro-pederasty collaboration (canvassing?) [5]
- upset about not getting the requisite pro pederasty editor support? [6]
- rather one-sided view of libel (pro pederast side) [7]
- Very upset [8]
- Denial of significant views [9]
Just a cursory look at the literature shows a significant view that Shively is a NAMBLA advocate man/boy love advocate heckled at cornell Gay Community News. Boston: May 12, 1984. Vol. 11, Iss. 42; pg. 2
“NAMBLA also co-sponsored Shively's visit”
They must be conservative, and the yuk brigade, therefore unworthy? [10] [11] looking for blood [12]
