Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[http://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign Wikipedia page] on Wikisposure. | [http://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign Wikipedia page] on Wikisposure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226707130#Unusual_action_by_admin_FCYTravis July 2008] ANI discussion of an administrator who deleted the appalling article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples 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)" | ||
Revision as of 13:53, 20 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)"
