Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia

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]

Wikiquette alert - (Phdarts complains)

In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [13]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [14]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attack

"What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before).

"The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory.

"I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)) [15]

Phdarts is blocked

05:41, 29 June 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Phdarts (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user.) [16]

Peter Damian (Hinnibilis) is blocked

The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? Hinnibilis (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

17:38, 29 June 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs) blocked "Peter Damian (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Harassment of another editor)

But under what strange assumption have I been 'harassing' another user? I accused FT2 of 'in effect' enabling pro-paedophile editors by blocking me and about the only other person prepared to put an end to nonsense claims like 'Jules Verne was a paedophile'. Yes, true. Another set of organisations I am contacting is the many Jules Verne societies. Oops but is that a 'legal threat'? Let's see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) [17]

this refers (FT2 archive page).