Minor-attracted person

[Tarc]

Whoever this was;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ave_a_seat (perm)

I love you. In a totally platonic way.

[Hemiauchenia]

I tried to factcheck Pokelova's claim that multiple people use the Pokelova username and I'm just not seeing evidence that this the case. It's strongly plausible that all use of this username is by a single person.

[Vigilant]

He still hasn't been blocked. How long does arbcom usually take to handle reports?

You must be new here.

Blocked by me. Had considered it earlier, but wasn't sure if they weren't a free speech advocate rather than a scumbag

[DFlhb]

Did some digging, and found good evidence to tie the WP and PsychForums accounts. I don't want to post it publicly because it would dox her, but I'm confident in this block.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Did some digging, and found good evidence to tie the WP and PsychForums accounts. I don't want to post it publicly because it would dox her, but I'm confident in this block.

Private message it to me...

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Yeah... this is gross...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuti ... _remove_it.

[eppur si muove]

Yeah... this is gross...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuti ... _remove_it.

I would agree with you that the picture which explicitly sexualises young adolescent girls is unnecessary. The person who made that request also wanted the pictures removed from Puberty (T-H-L) but I think that is different as the pictures there are black and white taken in the middle of the twentieth century and are not at all sexualised, despite the subject of the article.

I cannot predict what the stars of this film will say about their experiences in years to come but the man who played the youth in Death in Venice has been quite clear about the negative effects of being gawped at by the people who called him the most beautiful boy in the world. And isn't it just typical that, despite including Björn Andrésen (T-H-L)'s criticism of how he was treated by Visconti and of how later Germaine Greer used a picture of his young slef without permission for the cover of The Beautiful Boy, a picture of him in what is arguably a sexualised pose is used to illustrate his BLP.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Yeah... this is gross...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuti ... _remove_it.

I would agree with you that the picture which explicitly sexualises young adolescent girls is unnecessary. The person who made that request also wanted the pictures removed from Puberty (T-H-L) but I think that is different as the pictures there are black and white taken in the middle of the twentieth century and are not at all sexualised, despite the subject of the article.

I cannot predict what the stars of this film will say about their experiences in years to come but the man who played the youth in Death in Venice has been quite clear about the negative effects of being gawped at by the people who called him the most beautiful boy in the world. And isn't it just typical that, despite including Björn Andrésen (T-H-L)'s criticism of how he was treated by Visconti and of how later Germaine Greer used a picture of his young slef without permission for the cover of The Beautiful Boy, a picture of him in what is arguably a sexualised pose is used to illustrate his BLP.

What I considered gross was more Pokelova's decision to weigh in on that subject, less the poster.

[Scorpions13256]

Wow. I got my first pedophile banned from a website in 4 years. I used to do that a lot on Youtube before they disabled comments on videos featuring children.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Wow. I got my first pedophile banned from a website in 4 years. I used to do that a lot on Youtube before they disabled comments on videos featuring children.

Yeah... wait a while. I didn't exactly follow protocol to the letter.

[Tarc]

Qirtaiba claims his block is being reviewed by Trust & Safety.

[Hemiauchenia]

In related news: Anthony Liekens (T-H-L) is a Belgian scientist, who has published a number of papers related to biochemistry https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl ... by=pubdate Earlier this year, he was convicted of sexually abusing an 11 year old girl, which he stated was the result of "scientific curiosity", he was given a 40 month suspended sentence. This was covered by a number of newspapers in Belgium. https://web.archive.org/web/20230321101 ... ~ae96b522/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230417143 ... 7_92729620

Seemingly for legal reasons, none of the coverage actually includes his full name, but it's easy to tell that it's him, based on the censored photograph, and mention of a TV show he participated in. However, Belgium apparently has a super-powerful "right to be forgotten" law, which not only compels google to de-index the newspaper articles from search, but for the newspaper articles themselves to be deleted from the newspapers websites (hence why the above newspaper links are archived).

The conviction was formerly included in Lieken's English Wikipedia article based on the archived stories, but a new user, EmielDB (T-C-L), who is presumably Liekens himself, has been edit warring to remove it. This has resulted in a BLPN discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anthony_Liekens (T-H-L), where BLPN regulars have argued for the exclusion of the content, under the not unreasonable grounds that Liekens was never named in full by the newspapers, even if it is obvious that it is him.

I'm obviously in two minds about this, while enforcing BLP standards is reasonable, it's pretty enraging for the Belgian legal system to be used like this to censor coverage of crimes he was convicted of.

[eppur si muove]

From the article

n 2014, Anthony Liekens took the initiative to organize Fri3d Camp. Since then, Fri3d Camp has been a 2-yearly family-friendly hacker camp...

Just how family-friendly we now know,

[tinyboxs]

...more like right to be forgiven!

[DFlhb]

40 month suspended sentence

What an flawed society we live in. I'd be fine with it if this was considered "rehabilitative" and somehow included curing these people psychologically. But I don't have enough faith in most psychologists to have faith that this ever happens.

[Giraffe Stapler]

In related news: Anthony Liekens (T-H-L) is a Belgian scientist, who has published a number of papers related to biochemistry https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl ... by=pubdate Earlier this year, he was convicted of sexually abusing an 11 year old girl, which he stated was the result of "scientific curiosity", he was given a 40 month suspended sentence. This was covered by a number of newspapers in Belgium. https://web.archive.org/web/20230321101 ... ~ae96b522/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230417143 ... 7_92729620

This reminds me of a case that Crowsnest was quite exercised about. If I remember correctly, a well-known English astronomer had been charged with accessing child pornography. The court gave him a sentence of therapy and probation. This was reported in the Daily Mail but seemingly nowhere else. (At least this is how I recall it. I can't be bothered to try and find the details now.) Lacking confirmation in reliable sources, it wasn't included in his Wikipedia bio.

I understand the desire to include this stuff in Wikipedia (see "watermelon man") but I also think it needs to beyond doubt.

[Mason]

Belgium apparently has a super-powerful "right to be forgotten" law, which not only compels google to de-index the newspaper articles from search, but for the newspaper articles themselves to be deleted from the newspapers websites (hence why the above newspaper links are archived).

Huh. I wonder if the victims are required to forget who assaulted them, or if they’re merely forbidden to remember them publicly.

[ArmasRebane]

In related news: Anthony Liekens (T-H-L) is a Belgian scientist, who has published a number of papers related to biochemistry https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl ... by=pubdate Earlier this year, he was convicted of sexually abusing an 11 year old girl, which he stated was the result of "scientific curiosity", he was given a 40 month suspended sentence. This was covered by a number of newspapers in Belgium. https://web.archive.org/web/20230321101 ... ~ae96b522/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230417143 ... 7_92729620

Seemingly for legal reasons, none of the coverage actually includes his full name, but it's easy to tell that it's him, based on the censored photograph, and mention of a TV show he participated in. However, Belgium apparently has a super-powerful "right to be forgotten" law, which not only compels google to de-index the newspaper articles from search, but for the newspaper articles themselves to be deleted from the newspapers websites (hence why the above newspaper links are archived).

The conviction was formerly included in Lieken's English Wikipedia article based on the archived stories, but a new user, EmielDB (T-C-L), who is presumably Liekens himself, has been edit warring to remove it. This has resulted in a BLPN discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anthony_Liekens (T-H-L), where BLPN regulars have argued for the exclusion of the content, under the not unreasonable grounds that Liekens was never named in full by the newspapers, even if it is obvious that it is him.

I'm obviously in two minds about this, while enforcing BLP standards is reasonable, it's pretty enraging for the Belgian legal system to be used like this to censor coverage of crimes he was convicted of.

To me this seems like a fair case of Wikipedia follows its rules, and it's not our fault that Belgium's approach to this is excessively lenient. It's not like they've got a bunch of great sources that ever actually made the connection explicit. If you allowed the type of sourcing that would peg this guy in WIkipedia's voice as an abuser, you're going to enable a lot more hearsay and libel get published against less deserving targets in the process.

[Hemiauchenia]

In related news: Anthony Liekens (T-H-L) is a Belgian scientist, who has published a number of papers related to biochemistry https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl ... by=pubdate Earlier this year, he was convicted of sexually abusing an 11 year old girl, which he stated was the result of "scientific curiosity", he was given a 40 month suspended sentence. This was covered by a number of newspapers in Belgium. https://web.archive.org/web/20230321101 ... ~ae96b522/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230417143 ... 7_92729620

This reminds me of a case that Crowsnest was quite exercised about. If I remember correctly, a well-known English astronomer had been charged with accessing child pornography. The court gave him a sentence of therapy and probation. This was reported in the Daily Mail but seemingly nowhere else. (At least this is how I recall it. I can't be bothered to try and find the details now.) Lacking confirmation in reliable sources, it wasn't included in his Wikipedia bio.

I understand the desire to include this stuff in Wikipedia (see "watermelon man") but I also think it needs to beyond doubt.

Yeah, the Marek Kukula (T-H-L) example (covered at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11997&p=290409&hil ... la#p290409) came to mind when I was writing the post, but to me one of the major differences was that coverage for Kukula was entirely in tabloids, whereas Het Laatste Nieuws (T-H-L) (hln.be) and Gazet van Antwerpen (T-H-L) (gva.be) seem to be more reputable newspapers. I don't disagree with the exclusion on BLP grounds, but (presumably) having a guy who molested an 11 year old girl rubbing Wikipedias BLP policy in its face does leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

[Midsize Jake]

Yeah, the Marek Kukula (T-H-L) example (covered at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11997&p=290409&hil ... la#p290409) came to mind when I was writing the post, but to me one of the major differences was that coverage for Kukula was entirely in tabloids, whereas Het Laatste Nieuws (T-H-L) (hln.be) and Gazet van Antwerpen (T-H-L) (gva.be) seem to be more reputable newspapers. I don't disagree with the exclusion on BLP grounds, but (presumably) having a guy who molested an 11 year old girl rubbing Wikipedias BLP policy in its face does leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

I'd say there's a significant difference in the nature of the offense(s) too, which is probably a big reason for the difference in coverage. Kukula was arrested for child porn, and he was/is also gay, so most (if not all) of the porn images were of male children, which made it more sensational for conservative tabloids. But of course when those tabloids get their teeth into something like that, the more highbrow (and less conservative) outlets start to avoid it for fear of looking like tabloids themselves. (Kukula's excuse was that he obtained the images in question a "long time ago" and this all happened during a "difficult period" in his life, and he was very sorry, etc.)

Whereas with Liekens, it looks like he assaulted an 11-year-old girl, but then claimed there was nothing "sexual" about it — i.e., he just lost his temper/cool/sanity "temporarily" and it shouldn't have been characterized as "molestation." So in addition to this being less sensational for tabloids (at least partly because he's heterosexual), that defense could easily have served to cast reasonable doubt on allegations that he was some sort of degenerate weirdo, at least in a Belgian court.

I'd say the real problem in both of these cases is that Wikipedia's only effective defense here (against people wanting to highlight these incidents in the two BLPs in question) is to just deny the inclusion of these incidents completely, since they'll never be able to maintain a stable and "neutral" description of them that won't be subjected to ongoing edit-wars. So of course, that looks like censorship to anyone not inclined to believe or accept the article subjects' defenses of their actions.

[casualdejekyll]

Yeah, the Marek Kukula (T-H-L) example (covered at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11997&p=290409&hil ... la#p290409) came to mind when I was writing the post, but to me one of the major differences was that coverage for Kukula was entirely in tabloids, whereas Het Laatste Nieuws (T-H-L) (hln.be) and Gazet van Antwerpen (T-H-L) (gva.be) seem to be more reputable newspapers. I don't disagree with the exclusion on BLP grounds, but (presumably) having a guy who molested an 11 year old girl rubbing Wikipedias BLP policy in its face does leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

I'd say there's a significant difference in the nature of the offense(s) too, which is probably a big reason for the difference in coverage. Kukula was arrested for child porn, and he was/is also gay, so most (if not all) of the porn images were of male children, which made it more sensational for conservative tabloids. But of course when those tabloids get their teeth into something like that, the more highbrow (and less conservative) outlets start to avoid it for fear of looking like tabloids themselves. (Kukula's excuse was that he obtained the images in question a "long time ago" and this all happened during a "difficult period" in his life, and he was very sorry, etc.)

Whereas with Liekens, it looks like he assaulted an 11-year-old girl, but then claimed there was nothing "sexual" about it — i.e., he just lost his temper/cool/sanity "temporarily" and it shouldn't have been characterized as "molestation." So in addition to this being less sensational for tabloids (at least partly because he's heterosexual), that defense could easily have served to cast reasonable doubt on allegations that he was some sort of degenerate weirdo, at least in a Belgian court.

I'd say the real problem in both of these cases is that Wikipedia's only effective defense here (against people wanting to highlight these incidents in the two BLPs in question) is to just deny the inclusion of these incidents completely, since they'll never be able to maintain a stable and "neutral" description of them that won't be subjected to ongoing edit-wars. So of course, that looks like censorship to anyone not inclined to believe or accept the article subjects' defenses of their actions.

There's a related shitshow going on at the talk page of Isla Bryson case (T-H-L) (not related in terms of sourcing, the subject of the article DEFINITELY raped people, but related in terms of what tabloids get off on)

[qirtaiba]

Just posted this:

Child Protection Professionals Censored on Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s record on child protection has swung from one extreme, in which pro-child abuse content was openly hosted for years, to another, in which child sexual abuse prevention professionals are being smeared and silenced. Both are predictable results of entrusting essential trust and safety responsibilities to untrained volunteers.

This will be my one and only post here, and I won't be monitoring replies. If you have a response that want me to see, post it as a comment on the article.

[casualdejekyll]

Just posted this:

Child Protection Professionals Censored on Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s record on child protection has swung from one extreme, in which pro-child abuse content was openly hosted for years, to another, in which child sexual abuse prevention professionals are being smeared and silenced. Both are predictable results of entrusting essential trust and safety responsibilities to untrained volunteers.

This will be my one and only post here, and I won't be monitoring replies. If you have a response that want me to see, post it as a comment on the article.

You're being "smeared and silenced" because WP won't have two articles about pedophilia? I doubt it; and left a comment on your website to that effect.

[iii]

You're being "smeared and silenced" because WP won't have two articles about pedophilia? I doubt it; and left a comment on your website to that effect.

The premise of the jeremiad is that there are two finger-wagging-ly bad extremes that have happened at Wikipedia. The first one was back in the bad old days when the site was permissive or at least non-committal over accommodating child sexual abuse. The second is the more recent practice of banning people who self-describe as working to prevent child sexual abuse by means of certain dubious and questionable rhetorical tactics. The author condemns the former, but spends much less written real estate on that in comparison to his pity-party over his bannination because of the latter. The author considers these two examples of Wikipedia being bad, and, if not explicitly claiming these to be equally terrible, both are supposedly at least worthy of disapproval as countervailing extremist positions.

For my part, I see these two "positions" as being wildly incomparable. The first position is deplorable, possibly illegal. The second position is what happens with a guy has a bad day on a website that allows people on the internet to add content.

The false equivalency. It burns.

[Zoloft]

Just posted this:

Child Protection Professionals Censored on Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s record on child protection has swung from one extreme, in which pro-child abuse content was openly hosted for years, to another, in which child sexual abuse prevention professionals are being smeared and silenced. Both are predictable results of entrusting essential trust and safety responsibilities to untrained volunteers.

This will be my one and only post here, and I won't be monitoring replies. If you have a response that want me to see, post it as a comment on the article.

Since they won't be posting or communicating here, I've muted them.

[Vigilant]

:shudder:

[Giraffe Stapler]

In June, Qirtaiba/Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

To put that into a real-world context, this very blog site – the one that you are reading right now – was recently blacklisted from Wikipedia on the basis of a false report suggesting that it contained improper “child-related content”. A link to the blog from my author page was removed and my editing privileges on Wikipedia were revoked. (These actions are currently under review by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust & Safety team, and will likely be reversed.)

That didn't happen. In September, Qirtaiba/Jeremy Malcolm wrote about his "final" appeal and how it was swiftly denied.

I will reproduce the most interesting part of that appeal here for those who do not wish to visit Malcolm's site.

Please consult my user talk page for a brief history. As described there, I previously made a UTRS appeal #74743, which was closed with the suggestion “Due to the complexities therein, it would be best for user to email Trust and Safety.” I subsequently did email Trust and Safety, and set up a face-to-face meeting with Jan Eissfeldt, Global Head of Trust and Safety, which took place on July 13.

He and I discussed a growing concern among public health professionals that English Wikipedia’s child protection policy is being misapplied to censor information about child sexual abuse (CSA) prevention, and to intimidate and silence editors who write on this topic. My own ban from English Wikipedia is an example of the policy being misapplied in this way.

While receptive to this concern, Mr Eissfeldt expressed that there was no action that his office could take to correct the misapplication of the policy on English Wikipedia, which is an independently self-governed project. He suggested instead that a representative of the professionals involved could write a submission to the Wikimedia Foundation concerning its proposed new Child Sexual Exploitation Policy. That policy, and guidelines for its enforcement, would be disseminated to English Wikipedia and the other projects in due course.

Qirtaibi: Blah blah blah

Eissfeldt: Yeah man, I hear ya. That's terrible. I wish I could help you out with that but it's, like, totally out of my hands,

Qirtaibi: Blah blah blah

Eissfeldt: Hey, I tell you what - these are some really, really great ideas and I think it's important that they don't get forgotten. Why don't you write them all down and send it to me? I'll make sure it gets to the right people.

Qirtaibi: Blah Blah Blah blah

Eissfeldt: I'm really sorry but I have another Zoom meeting coming up in a minute, so I'm going to have to go, but, uh, you send me that document, ok? Great meeting you! Bye!

[rnu]

While receptive to this concern, Mr Eissfeldt expressed that there was no action that his office could take to correct the misapplication of the policy on English Wikipedia, which is an independently self-governed project. He suggested instead that a representative of the professionals involved could write a submission to the Wikimedia Foundation concerning its proposed new Child Sexual Exploitation Policy. That policy, and guidelines for its enforcement, would be disseminated to English Wikipedia and the other projects in due course.

OK, so to sum it up:
If the English Wikipedia misapplies policy there is nothing we can do. But we can disseminate new policy and guidelines to the English Wikipedia.
And when the English Wikipedia decides to ignore those? I guess WMF will just wash their hands.

Note: I explicitly take no position on this whole "MAP" fight and on who was right and who was wrong. I am just pointing out the stupidity of this (alleged) response by WMF.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Soooo, Qirtaibi/Jeremy Malcom also says this in their post about Wikipedia:

Rather than blanket bans, consider policies that require users to tag potentially offensive or triggering content. The platform can then filter out certain tags from content feeds and discovery mechanisms by default, while allowing users who wish to see them to affirmatively opt in. Twitter allows three such tags – Nudity, Violence, and Sensitive – but fan-run platforms such as Archive of Our Own offer many more, enabling users to curate their own individualized content feeds at a more granular level.

I went to Archive of Our Own. I searched for "lolicon" (3,186 matches). Here are the tags on the first search result:

Underage
Original Female Character(s)
Original Male Character(s)
Original Child Character(s)
Lolicon
Pedophilia
Anal Sex
Underage Sex
Vaginal Sex
Voyeurism
Filming
Creampie
Multiple Orgasms
POV
First Person
Dubious Consent
Group Sex

The guy who is selling himself to the WMF as an expert on child protection uses this particular site as an example? Huh.

[Vigilant]

:shudder:

[rnu]

Archive_of_Our_Own#Russia (T-H-L)

In March 2023, Roskomnadzor had requested Archive of Our Own to delete 16 fics, containing "child pornography". The site was subsequently blocked in Russia on 14 April 2023, after failing to comply with the request. A Ukrainian Twitter user claimed responsibility for the report in a deleted tweet.

If that is true it is some advanced level trolling.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I am just pointing out the stupidity of this (alleged) response by WMF.

With "alleged" being the key word there. I think I'd trust the accuracy of his representation of what Eissfeldt said about as far as I'd trust him to babysit.

[eppur si muove]

I am just pointing out the stupidity of this (alleged) response by WMF.

With "alleged" being the key word there. I think I'd trust the accuracy of his representation of what Eissfeldt said about as far as I'd trust him to babysit.

Oh I've not seen a reason not to trust him as a babysitter. What I have seen is plenty of reason not to trust him to run a babysitting agency. Some of the organisations with which he has been associated seem to be a bit too willing to accept claims by people to be "non-offending" and then it gets discovered what they are up to.

[redbaron]

He still hasn't been blocked. How long does arbcom usually take to handle reports?

You must be new here.

Blocked by me. Had considered it earlier, but wasn't sure if they weren't a free speech advocate rather than a scumbag

And Pokelova (T-C-L) is now Office-banned.

[casualdejekyll]

Pokelova (T-C-L) - still an editor in good standing
86sedan (T-C-L) -SPA, indef'd
Doxastic1000 (T-C-L) - still an editor in good standing
Casdmo (T-C-L) - obviously involved but still an editor in good standing
Queer Linguist (T-C-L) - only 2 edits total
Strippy6 (T-C-L) - resurrected user
Qirtaiba (T-C-L) - Jeremy Malcom, indef'd, asking to be unblocked

Updates on these specific editors, for the sake of having it all in one place:
Pokelova (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
86sedan (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
Doxastic1000 (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
Casdmo (T-C-L) - Appears to be the only normal editor currently in good standing who !voted "keep" without making reference to massive overhaul of the article
Queer Linguist (T-C-L) - Who's sock is this? Not clear, but they haven't returned on this account yet.
Strippy6 (T-C-L) - Are they a sock? Not clear. They could probably be canvassed from offsite, but I don't want to bother polluting my search history with this crap to try to find them on a different site.
Qirtaiba (T-C-L) - Now muted on Wikipediocracy for further

Everyone else is either crickets due to being blocked or appears to be just a normal editor who got caught in the crossfire.

[Vigilant]

In a semi-related note, I don't think publicly identifying underaged editors is a great idea.

[lonza leggiera]

In a semi-related note, I don't think publicly identifying underaged editors is a great idea.

It looks like "youth" here might mean something like "under 30". From a desultory browse through the nominees, the two I found whose ages would appear to be reasonably well circumscribed, Lajmmoore (T-C-L) and Sir Amugi (T-C-L), look like they would be at least in their early twenties, and I didn't see any who were obviously under age. Nevertheless, even if all the individual nominees are actually adults, that should definitely have been made clear in the announcement.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Updates on these specific editors, for the sake of having it all in one place:
Pokelova (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
86sedan (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
Doxastic1000 (T-C-L) - SanFranBanned
Casdmo (T-C-L) - Appears to be the only normal editor currently in good standing who !voted "keep" without making reference to massive overhaul of the article
Queer Linguist (T-C-L) - Who's sock is this? Not clear, but they haven't returned on this account yet.
Strippy6 (T-C-L) - Are they a sock? Not clear. They could probably be canvassed from offsite, but I don't want to bother polluting my search history with this crap to try to find them on a different site.
Qirtaiba (T-C-L) - Now muted on Wikipediocracy for further

Everyone else is either crickets due to being blocked or appears to be just a normal editor who got caught in the crossfire.

I just want to highlight something here. The users who returned after long (multi-year) absences to vote in that AfD did so because they heard about it off-wiki. I am speaking specifically about Casdmo and Strippy6. That means they hang out in the same places and have the same interests as the SanFranBanned users. You may say this is guilt by association. I say yes, yes it is.

[owl be it]

Soooo, Qirtaibi/Jeremy Malcom also says this in their post about Wikipedia:

Rather than blanket bans, consider policies that require users to tag potentially offensive or triggering content. The platform can then filter out certain tags from content feeds and discovery mechanisms by default, while allowing users who wish to see them to affirmatively opt in. Twitter allows three such tags – Nudity, Violence, and Sensitive – but fan-run platforms such as Archive of Our Own offer many more, enabling users to curate their own individualized content feeds at a more granular level.

I went to Archive of Our Own. I searched for "lolicon" (3,186 matches). Here are the tags on the first search result:

Underage
Original Female Character(s)
Original Male Character(s)
Original Child Character(s)
Lolicon
Pedophilia
Anal Sex
Underage Sex
Vaginal Sex
Voyeurism
Filming
Creampie
Multiple Orgasms
POV
First Person
Dubious Consent
Group Sex

The guy who is selling himself to the WMF as an expert on child protection uses this particular site as an example? Huh.

I suppose one can be forgiven for not recognizing the biggest fanfiction site on the Internet, since the hobby is disproportionately female.

[casualdejekyll]

I suppose one can be forgiven for not recognizing the biggest fanfiction site on the Internet, since the hobby is disproportionately female.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Wikipediocracy is disproportionately male. But, most forum users here do not indicate their gender, and Jake calls everyone "Mr." regardless.

This website was previously the subject of this thread (which is closely related to this blogpost) and mentioned in this post. That makes three threads, completely unrelated to eachother. Some correlation between fanfic writers and Wiki-shenanigans?

It probably says a lot about how desensitized I am to the world's shitheels that I just described slander, doxxing and child pornography as "shenanigans".

[FelinaLavandula]

Pretty off-topic here but the AO3 model of tagging should not be emulated anywhere else. Jeremy here says you’re able to opt in/out, but that’s not true; when you do a search for “Johnlock” you can uncheck the box that says “Underage”, but that will not remove child pornography from your search results, only works that have specifically that one “Underage” flag. In order to actually blacklist tags (such as all of the ones that might indicate child porn), you need a third-party browser extension, which means this functionality is not present on mobile or by default. This has been a major user complaint since the inception of the website and they keep saying they’re “working on it” but it never seems to get done…
Sound familiar?

[Hemiauchenia]

Related drama: A new user, Virginia Courtsesan (T-C-L) has been expanding the article for disgraced journalist James Gordon Meek
(T-H-L), who was recently convicted of possession of child pornography. Other editors have objected to the additions, because they were poorly sourced or the sources did not support the claims. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:SUSPECT_and_QAnon-adjacent_POV_at_James_Gordon_Meek (T-H-L) It's now been escalated to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extra_Eyes_Please_on_James_Gordon_Meek (T-H-L) resulting in the article getting ECP'd

[Gh0st]

I can't be the only person concerned that an editor formerly known as "Mikehawk10" (who apparently only changed his name to Red-tailed hawk (T-C-L) in order to get advanced perms) who is currently up at RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk (T-H-L)) has had a concern related to this debacle live in the discussion for almost 3 days now with no response from him, can I?

[Giraffe Stapler]

I can't be the only person concerned that an editor formerly known as "Mikehawk10" (who apparently only changed his name to Red-tailed hawk (T-C-L) in order to get advanced perms) who is currently up at RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk (T-H-L)) has had a concern related to this debacle live in the discussion for almost 3 days now with no response from him, can I?

If we're asking questions that won't be answered, I'd like to know if 155blue (T-C-L) was his account or just a meatpuppet.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I can't be the only person concerned that an editor formerly known as "Mikehawk10" (who apparently only changed his name to Red-tailed hawk (T-C-L) in order to get advanced perms) who is currently up at RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk (T-H-L)) has had a concern related to this debacle live in the discussion for almost 3 days now with no response from him, can I?

From that same RfA:

I feel that I have to speak up about the minor-attracted person thing. First of all, RTH was the person who nominated the redirect for deletion the first time, citing concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT. I also feel the need to say that 22spears was not the person who created the page. It was someone else who also intended for it to redirect to Chronophilia, but I don't want to name them. In fact, they are an administrator who has made some of the best blocks related to WP:CHILDPROTECT I have ever seen. I respect them for that. So it's obvious that they don't like pedophiles. The evidence I have gives me no reason to believe that RTH will be any different.

Nonetheless, I was able to dig up dirt on an administrator during the chaos that was last year. What this administrator did with regards to WP:CHILDPROTECT was so shocking to me that I lost the ability to WP:AGF for that administrator. What RTH did in the second AFD was nowhere near as bad. If that administrator were running for admin ship today, I would oppose him being an administrator right away. Unfortunately, I never said anything about my findings until now because I didn't think there was enough evidence for a desysop or WP:CHILDPROTECT block. I am reaffirming my support for RTH because I see no reason to believe that he won't follow WP:CHILDPROTECT.

I feel very uncomfortable posting this. If anyone believes that I was wrong to post this addendum, they have my permission to remove it. If the arbitration committee wants my evidence, they can shoot me an email. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Scorpions1325 later removed the second and third paragraphs.

Scorpions, given the nature of the accusations I suggest you don't name the admin or post your concerns publicly, but I invite you to send a PM to me or anyone you trust here.

[Dan of La Mancha]

I can't be the only person concerned that an editor formerly known as "Mikehawk10" (who apparently only changed his name to Red-tailed hawk (T-C-L) in order to get advanced perms) who is currently up at RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk (T-H-L)) has had a concern related to this debacle live in the discussion for almost 3 days now with no response from him, can I?

The concern seems to be that Red-tailed Hawk voted "redirect" rather than "delete" in the 2nd MAP AfD. In fact, if you read past the bolded part, their vote was actually "Blank-and-redirect [...] or delete". Several others voted the same way, including casualdejekyll, Alison, and Boing said Zebedee. RTH never insisted that the article history should be preserved, and even if they had, it's a question about which reasonable people can disagree (WP:CHILDPROTECT doesn't say anything about it). Your RfA question is clearly intended as bait, especially since you've already cast an oppose vote, and I think RTH is doing wisely in ignoring it.

[Beeblebrox]

yep. He's going to pass with 97% support any moment now, so obviously he can just ignore that question. This caught my eye though link. Boomerang may be in the air.

[Arishok]

The RfA is now closed, but not before Lightburst reinstated the material reported to BN.

Galobtter has now requested that a crat re-remove it.