Minor-attracted person

[Vigilant]

I'm sympathetic to the views of Allyn Walker et al that paedophilia (the exclusive or primary sexual attraction to children regardless of whether they have offended or not) is a psychiatric disorder that ought to be treated by medical professionals but the swarm of SPAs surrounding this topic really rubs me the wrong way.

It ought to be treated by castration, honestly.

Indeed, both chemical and surgical castration are very effective at drastically reducing recividism among sex offenders https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565125/, though chemical castration requires the ongoing injections of expensive drugs.

High velocity lead poisoning is both cheap and 100% effective.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Returning to the possibility of a Joe job or double bluff, it's worth considering that pro-pedo elements might have a reason of their own to want the article salted. Could SPAs on both sides have come from the same people with the plan to derail the discussion and promote panic?

There aren't SPAs "on both sides". I just looked through the AfD and the only user voting "delete" that isn't an established user is an IP. I can't think of a sound reason why "pro-pedo elements" would want the article salted.

It seems pretty clear that this was a pro-pedophilia advocate engaging in some pro-pedophilia advocacy and being supported by like-minded people recruited on some pro-pedophilia forum who either created new accounts or revived their old accounts (some of which already had hints about their point of view). Was it a "joe job" or "false flag" operation? No. The posts in this thread which tie certain Wikipedia users to accounts on pro-pedophilia sites suggest that it was done by people who are known in those pro-pedophilia communities.

There's no mystery here, except why people with things to hide keep popping up to expose themselves to more scrutiny. I don't think the ban hammer has stopped falling yet.

[DFlhb]

Dormant account Jeremy Malcolm (T-C-L) just voted Keep at the MAP AfD, and Zaathras replied with a diff that shows "clear pro-pedophile advocacy".

Still-not-banned R Alvarez02 (T-C-L) struck Zaathras's comment, and said that Malcolm "runs a child protection organization". Except that organization is Prostasia, which Media Matters describes as "a group that has actively worked to destigmatize pedophilia and campaigned against banning sex dolls that resemble children". They also oppose sex offender registries (archived link), and according to the book "Man-Made Women" (Springer), they support legalizing drawings of CP.

Both deserve a ban IMO.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Dormant account Jeremy Malcolm (T-C-L) just voted Keep at the MAP AfD, and Zaathras replied with a diff that shows "clear pro-pedophile advocacy".

Still-not-banned R Alvarez02 (T-C-L) struck Zaathras's comment, and said that Malcolm "runs a child protection organization". Except that organization is Prostasia, which Media Matters describes as "a group that has actively worked to destigmatize pedophilia and campaigned against banning sex dolls that resemble children". They also oppose sex offender registries (archived link), and according to the book "Man-Made Women" (Springer), they support legalizing drawings of CP.

Both deserve a ban IMO.

Jeremy Malcolm goes by Qirtaiba (T-C-L). The Prostasia site also has a forum (which I don't reccommend unless you like reading about laws on childlike sex dolls).

[DFlhb]

And... EL_C just banned both.

Thanks for the welcome, Giraffe. Nice avatar.

[Liltjay08Foo]

It's funny to see how these chomos co-opts inclusionism to advance the agenda. Perhaps that's how and why inclusionism is discredited on-wiki nowadays with the rise of "excessive deletionism"?

[eppur si muove]

And... EL_C just banned both.

Thanks for the welcome, Giraffe. Nice avatar.

It's worth quoting EL_C's wording to Malcolm diff:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy (it doesn't matter if it's nuanced and incremental when the overarching aim is the same, as with your so-called "child protection" organization).

Prostasia have in the past threatened the peer-reviewed online academic journal the British Journal of Philosophy Sociology and History with court action after they published a paper critical of them. The BJPSH retracted the article without explanation. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Prostasia threatening Wikipedia, the WMF and EL-C after that. I think that this link is a repost of the paper in question.

[Alexbrn]

It seems pretty clear that this was a pro-pedophilia advocate engaging in some pro-pedophilia advocacy and being supported by like-minded people ...

As the dust settles, I think this is the right assessment. It looked so obvious at first I wondered if it was an attempt to get Wikipedia into a state where fingers could be pointed ("Look how disgustingly pro-paedophile Wikipedia is") but no, the players actually seemed to want to get to a state where they could say "Look how enlightened Wikipedia is!"

Raises some interesting questions though. Seems you can be banned for child safety reasons on one WMF Project and resurface on another.

[DFlhb]

So I wouldn't be surprised to see Prostasia threatening Wikipedia, the WMF and EL-C after that.

No way they'd be that dumb. They want academic influence, and to be seen as an innocuous child protection charity. So far, the only reliable, mainstream sources that have criticized them are the radfem Springer textbook and the Media Matters piece that I linked. Everything else is Daily Caller, Spiked Online, PJMedia, OpIndia, and other minor sites. A Wikipedia lawsuit carries too high a risk of attracting mainstream attention and scrutiny.

[Midsize Jake]

No way they'd be that dumb. They want academic influence, and to be seen as an innocuous child protection charity. So far, the only reliable, mainstream sources that have criticized them are the radfem Springer textbook and the Media Matters piece that I linked. Everything else is Daily Caller, Spiked Online, PJMedia, OpIndia, and other minor sites. A Wikipedia lawsuit carries too high a risk of attracting mainstream attention and scrutiny.

I agree — in fact, I suspect they'll do the opposite of threaten them, they'll keep trying this same "follow the rules" approach until it works. These people are obviously organized and maybe even well-funded, and I suspect they've worked out the process for replacing the word "pedophile" with "MAP" in considerable detail, and clearly Wikipedia is an integral part of that process. It almost has to be, given the position it occupies, so I don't think they'll give up after just this one failure. (Have there been previous failures? I haven't really looked into this before today.)

Obviously this puts the Wikipedians in the position of having to make an exception to their "information wants to be free!" approach in order to at least pretend to be responsible and do the right thing, but if this incident is any indication, they should be able to manage it after occasional short periods of bitter infighting (which they're all used to anyway, of course).

Honestly though, I guess you can't really blame the pedophiles for trying — what with people like Matt Gaetz, Gym Jordan, Dennis Hastert, Roy Moore, Mark Grethen, Randal Ankeney, maybe even Trump himself being exposed as pedophiles and enablers... I wouldn't want to be associated with people like that either!

[Mojito]

It'd be good if en-wp could undermine the hard work of these creeps, by redirecting the article to Pedophile.

[Liltjay08Foo]

So I wouldn't be surprised to see Prostasia threatening Wikipedia, the WMF and EL-C after that.

No way they'd be that dumb. They want academic influence, and to be seen as an innocuous child protection charity. So far, the only reliable, mainstream sources that have criticized them are the radfem Springer textbook and the Media Matters piece that I linked. Everything else is Daily Caller, Spiked Online, PJMedia, OpIndia, and other minor sites. A Wikipedia lawsuit carries too high a risk of attracting mainstream attention and scrutiny.

Considering that James Forrester is still on the payroll, let the games begin!

[Midsize Jake]

It'd be good if en-wp could undermine the hard work of these creeps, by redirecting the article to Pedophile.

Extremely good idea. (This is why we have the hat-tip smiley, in fact.)

[Liltjay08Foo]

It'd be good if en-wp could undermine the hard work of these creeps, by redirecting the article to Pedophile.

Extremely good idea. (This is why we have the hat-tip smiley, in fact.)

True, as is already just been done at Justapedia.

[Anroth]

Disclaimer, as a victim of child sexual abuse:

The problem with the treatment of pedophilia is that its widely misunderstood/deliberately mis-used.

You have peadophiles (in the technical sense) of adults attracted to non-sexually mature children (eg 11 & under etc). This is a disorder that is not going to be cured by psychiatric help any more than any other sexual attraction can be cured by psychiatry. This is abnormal behaviour and obviously a sickness - but you cant even have this conversation because no one wants to go down the road of 'well what other sexual preferences are a sickness then?' - any discussion breaks down completely. Who knows, we might one day identify a gene therapy to cure this, but its not a psychiatric issue. Which is why castration/blockers are sometimes effective, it takes away any sort of physical drive, but it doesnt actually fix any underlying issue. It just allows people who know their attraction is wrong to live something resembling a normal life.

Then you have people who are attracted to sexually active/mature children (eg under the age of consent 12-18). This is a social constraint but normal physical behaviour/response. These people are not ill, they just dont want to obey the current social conventions in their particularly geographic/cultural society. This can be treated to an extent with social and psychiatric help, as its making the individual understand how their behaviour can be corrected. If they are unwilling or unable to be treated, then essentially they should be treated like the below, a threat.

Then you have those for whom its primarily a power thing. The aggressive predator exploiting the weak. Its not that they are particularly attracted to children, its that children are weak and vulnerable and easily preyed upon. This is what most people envisage (and our media) enforces. These are the minority but by their nature get all the press. Treatment for these people essentially faces the same hurdles as people with ASPD (sociopaths/psychopaths), first they have to recognise what they have, and they have to want to engage in therapy. But realistically its a tiny success rate for that, and in the meantime they have to be segregated to prevent any harm to others, and incarceration in most countries (there are notable exceptions) reduces willingness to engage in productive growth. If you consider society as a whole, these are the ones who need to be locked away and the key lost.

[tinyboxs]

It'd be good if en-wp could undermine the hard work of these creeps, by redirecting the article to Pedophile.

How about using normal mainspace editing to reverse the damage they've already done by way of balanced and up-to-date information? For fucks sake, you do not solve anything through this kind of spiteful reactivity, you place yourself under the thumb of bad actors. By way of example, if I was a PR agent working to improve public opinion of palm oil, I could start a massive greenwashing campaign called "palm's a charm." If I wrote a terrible POV Wikipedia article on the subject of this campaign, minimising all of the deception and evil involved, even if the article was deleted on this basis, I would still count myself triumphant, as there would still be no publicization of my deception on wiki, and it would be even less likely that anyone would be willing to introduce it at a later date.

[eppur si muove]

If we're looking for potential academics who might be hiding behind pseudonyms using the WP:SOCKLEGIT excuse, then Ian V. McPhail (T-C-L) hasn't edited since 2018. He, Jeremy Malcolm and James Cantor (T-C-L)/James Cantor (T-H-L) can be seen collaborating at link. Cantor can't use that excuse because he's been permanently blocked for socking already. Of course what they do not disclose in talk page discussions is their tangle of interconnections in the real world outside Wikipedia through Prostasia, and/or having collaborated on journal articles etc. Malcolm, for example mentions no connection when seeking to have Cantor's BLP massaged in his favour.

[tinyboxs]

I'm interested in B4U-ACT, one of the key groups behind promoting this terminology, acting under the misnomer of "anti-child sexual abuse," who were way too kindly treated in the old revision of the MAP article. News results on Google show that they are very controversial, but all but one (an aged reddit post) of the main front-page Google search results are from them and their associated acts. They have no Wikipedia article as of yet but I'm thinking putting a one at the top of those results would be deeply disempowering to them.

[tinyboxs]

Here's an interesting piece of critical writing about B4U-ACT and "MAP" that I would read properly if I had the energy. It seems like it has a fair degree of religious POV though.

[iii]

While y'all debate what to do in the wider society, seems to me that we all agree what ought to be done in Wikipedia with pedophile accounts.

Why is there no WP:NOPEDOS (T-H-L) essay/guideline/rule from on high?

[eppur si muove]

Here's an interesting piece of critical writing about B4U-ACT and "MAP" that I would read properly if I had the energy. It seems like it has a fair degree of religious POV though.

That's a long read. I'm taking a break from it after reading Section II.

But on that section, I think the authors misunderstand some of the purpose of the DSM. It defines what psychiatrists regard it as worth spending their professional time on. In requiring significant distress on behalf of the paedophile or offences involving multiple victims before the individual merits a diagnosis, the APA is intending to give the message that psychiatrists do not want to spend lots of their time on paedophiles especially when there is so little evidence of treatability. In effect they are saying to the criminal justice system that dealing with people who commit sex offences against children is its business.

Although we might colloquially consider such people to be "sick", the APA is saying "No, they're not mad; they're bad." Their British equivalents would say that these people should be sent to Dartmoor not Broadmoor.

[tinyboxs]

There aren't SPAs "on both sides". I just looked through the AfD and the only user voting "delete" that isn't an established user is an IP.

Despite being unblocked, MrPinkingShears (T-C-L) is an SPA.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Prostasia have in the past threatened the peer-reviewed online academic journal the British Journal of Philosophy Sociology and History with court action after they published a paper critical of them. The BJPSH retracted the article without explanation. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Prostasia threatening Wikipedia, the WMF and EL-C after that. I think that this link is a repost of the paper in question.

Jeremy Malcolm is a lawyer who used to work for the EFF. He's not going to take this lightly (or quietly).

[Midsize Jake]

It'd be good if en-wp could undermine the hard work of these creeps, by redirecting the article to Pedophile.

How about using normal mainspace editing to reverse the damage they've already done by way of balanced and up-to-date information? For fucks sake, you do not solve anything through this kind of spiteful reactivity, you place yourself under the thumb of bad actors.

Realistically, I don't think they're going to "solve" anything regardless. I'd say they should probably do both things, but if one can be done in an instant, and makes it very clear to everyone that the Wikipedians know what the pedo-rebranders are trying to do, why not? I guess I don't see how that places them under the thumb of bad actors — technically, about 80% of Wikipedians themselves are already bad actors, in the conventional sense of the term. Thumbs are just a fact of life over there.

By way of example, if I was a PR agent working to improve public opinion of palm oil, I could start a massive greenwashing campaign called "palm's a charm." If I wrote a terrible POV Wikipedia article on the subject of this campaign, minimising all of the deception and evil involved, even if the article was deleted on this basis, I would still count myself triumphant, as there would still be no publicization of my deception on wiki, and it would be even less likely that anyone would be willing to introduce it at a later date.

You mean, less likely that someone would be willing to post something on WP to publicize their deception/evil? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I also don't see how that necessarily follows. In actual experience, the Wikipedians don't really get to decide what ends up being publicized anyway, at least in a wider sense — the media does that, and the media usually treats them like they're all delightfully charming little nerds whose innocent fun is being spoiled by the big bad outside world. On the few occasions when they don't, (i.e., bad Wikipedian behavior shows up in the newspapers), that's when it become a big deal on Wikipedia itself.

Good point about palm oil, btw — palm oil concessions (esp. in Borneo and Sumatra) and the resulting deforestation lead to the deaths of well over a thousand orangutans per year, and at least 50,000 just since they started counting them. But I suspect the analogy only holds if they replace the Palm oil (T-H-L) article with a redirect to Endangerment of orangutans (T-H-L) — which seems far less likely to happen than what Mr. Mojito suggested.

[tarantino]

Freelance author Noah Berlatsky, who was announced as the communications director of Prostasia in 2021, has been editing wp since 2005 as NoahB (T-C-L). He's quite uncontroversial there anyways.

[tinyboxs]

Changes to the article now mean that "Cartographer," a recent variation of "MAP" used by internet cryptopedos to identify each other in their bios (along with ), which was previously buried in this reliable but google-wise obscure source, now appears right at the top of the search results for "minor attracted person." I doubt that they aren't looking forward to the article being deleted. Yes, the thing is real. Just search for "map emoji" on twitter!

[FelinaLavandula]

Noah Berlatsky?! That’s a name I remember from my Twitter days… seems this is one of the few roles he doesn’t have in his bio…

[eppur si muove]

Noah Berlatsky?! That’s a name I remember from my Twitter days… seems this is one of the few roles he doesn’t have in his bio…

According to the article I mentioned earlier link Berlastsky is a founder of Prostasia and has bene writing material portraying paedophiles as scapegoats since at least 2017.

[Liltjay08Foo]

I said somewhere that there is a hidden pedophilia scandal, so now all I need to do is to push it just over a ledge.

[eppur si muove]

Prostasia have in the past threatened the peer-reviewed online academic journal the British Journal of Philosophy Sociology and History with court action after they published a paper critical of them. The BJPSH retracted the article without explanation. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Prostasia threatening Wikipedia, the WMF and EL-C after that. I think that this link is a repost of the paper in question.

Jeremy Malcolm is a lawyer who used to work for the EFF. He's not going to take this lightly (or quietly).

Well, he's managed to avoid breaking WP:NLT in his initial appeal. diff

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:
Qirtaiba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • filter log • creation log)

Request reason:

I was blocked for disruptive editing in violation of Wikipedia's child protection policy. This is completely baseless. My job is as a trust and safety professional, and protecting children from sexual abuse is part of my job. El_C, the editor who blocked me left a comment suggesting that he has an issue with the child protection organization I previously worked for, Prostasia Foundation. Although it has been attacked with misinformation by the far-right, the organization is legitimate and well respected by peers in the field. It has received grants from major charitable foundations, given presentations at major conferences including a plenary presentation for the the Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse (ASTA), has raised over $70,000 for prevention research, and is about to announce its new Executive Director, a renowned university professor and child protection researcher. I look forward to the speedy restoration of my account. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

[Tarc]

Now there's a pile-on aimed at Bbb23 (T-C-L), who initially and wrongly blocked the complainant in all of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _for_Bbb23

Even another admin got in on it.

x10

[eppur si muove]

It's interesting to note that although Jeremy Malcolm is very interested in preserving "Minor-attracted person", he's happy to replace " woman who was assigned male at birth" with "biologically male person with a female gender identity". diff Obviously he feels that the neologisms preferred by trans people should be stamped out whilst those nice paedophiles, such as the ones with assorted criminal records with who he worked at Prostasia, should be allowed to change the language as much as they want.

And, talking about Prostasia, anyone notice a complete lack of conflict of interest declaration in this post: diff.

Media Matters article
A Media Matters article used as a source is of questionable value. A few points:

It uses "Expert" in scare quotes in its title. Is there really any point questioning that James Cantor is an expert?
It is cited in support of the fact that Cantor's removal from the witness list was "related to public advocacy for pedophiles," but the Media Matters article has nothing more to show for this than speculation.
Furthermore, why is his involvement with Prostasia Foundation mentioned in connection with this? What is this meant to prove? That stigma reduction around this mental health condition is bad? If so, all we have for this is a link from the article to a Medium blog, which in turn quotes and links to a Daily Mail story that calls pedophiles a "fiendish group of sub-humans". Seriously?
If not the whole paragraph, then the section "The removal was reportedly related to public advocacy for pedophiles, including association with the Prostasia Foundation, and advocating for pedophiles to be included as "P" under the LGBTQ umbrella" should be removed. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether James Cantor (also permanently blocked on WP) will prove to be the new Executive Director of Prostasia.

[Smultronstället]

Here's an interesting piece of critical writing about B4U-ACT and "MAP" that I would read properly if I had the energy. It seems like it has a fair degree of religious POV though.

That's a long read. I'm taking a break from it after reading Section II.

But on that section, I think the authors misunderstand some of the purpose of the DSM. It defines what psychiatrists regard it as worth spending their professional time on. In requiring significant distress on behalf of the paedophile or offences involving multiple victims before the individual merits a diagnosis, the APA is intending to give the message that psychiatrists do not want to spend lots of their time on paedophiles especially when there is so little evidence of treatability. In effect they are saying to the criminal justice system that dealing with people who commit sex offences against children is its business.

Although we might colloquially consider such people to be "sick", the APA is saying "No, they're not mad; they're bad." Their British equivalents would say that these people should be sent to Dartmoor not Broadmoor.

Section IV is important and brief. I haven't read the rest. Reisman is well thought of in a segment of child protection advocates who follow Jesus.

[Gh0st]

Now there's a pile-on aimed at Bbb23 (T-C-L), who initially and wrongly blocked the complainant in all of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _for_Bbb23

Even another admin got in on it.

x10

A truly amazing sequence of edits by Beyond My Ken: diff diff diff diff diff

Why does Bbb23 need to talk when BMK does it all?

[Midsize Jake]

A truly amazing sequence of edits by Beyond My Ken: diff diff diff diff diff

Why does Bbb23 need to talk when BMK does it all?

... to Mr. Gh0st.

It's easy to suspect that some of the vitriol that's been leveled against Mr. Bbb23 in the past has been exaggerated, if only because the people who are the source of the vitriol are, well, unusually vitriolic themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that WP really would be much better off if he didn't have administrative rights. (Maybe even editing rights!)

Anyhoo, I think we all knew Mr. Ken and Mr. Bbb23 are sympatico to an unusual degree, but with all these rushing-to-his-defense diffs just in the last 24 hours or so, particularly under these circumstances... if I didn't know any better (which I don't), I'd say it's looking like there may be something unusually unusual going on with these two.

[eppur si muove]

Now there's a pile-on aimed at Bbb23 (T-C-L), who initially and wrongly blocked the complainant in all of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _for_Bbb23

Even another admin got in on it.

x10

I've just looked at Category:Requests_for_unblock (T-H-L). Guess who currently has 10 appeals against their blocks? That's three more than second place.

[eppur si muove]

Jeremy Malcolm may have been on Wikipedia since 2005 but he hasn't been paying attention to how Wikipedia works. Here's his second block appeal diff:

My original unblock request was improperly dealt with in concert with the administrator who originally blocked me, in violation of the guideline that appeals should be dealt with independently. I would request that an independent administrator review the block this time.
Next, let's look at the actual allegation that my editing has been "disruptive" in violation of the child protection policy. The simple fact is that I have never, either on or off Wikipedia, done anything in contravention of the policy. The policy relevantly prohibits the use of Wikipedia to:

pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles.
To reiterate, I have never done any of these things, on or off wiki. In all of my child protection work, I have consistently maintained that there is no excuse for child sexual abuse, and that adult-child relationships are never acceptable because they always carry a grave risk of harm to children. Simply discussing the mental condition of pedophilia is not the same as excusing or downplaying child sexual abuse! If anything, the fact that society is more concerned with sexual deviancy than sexual violence is a sad reflection of rape culture.

I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia over 18 years on topics on which I have direct professional expertise, including Internet governance, consumer protection, copyright, international relations, and child protection. I understand that Wikipedia is attempting to prevent editors with a covert agenda for the normalization of child sexual abuse. I agree with that position, and can affirm that I am no such editor. Again, I look forward to the speedy restoration of my account.

Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What are the odds that he loses his user page access after this?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Now that the article is deleted (and salted), how well did the English Wikipedia community deal with this? On the whole, I would say pretty well. The article is gone. I think it probably would have been deleted even if Alexbrn hadn't brought it up here, but looking at the state of the AfD at that time, who knows? I am sure, however, that 22spears et al. would still be editing if not for the discussion here and the ANI discussion unwisely started by a naive user.

It's pretty obvious that votes were being canvassed off-wiki. A review of editors voting to keep the article:
22spears (T-C-L) - SPA, indef'd for "advocacy"
R alvarez02 (T-C-L) - SPA, indef'd
Pokelova (T-C-L) - still an editor in good standing
86Sedan (T-C-L) -SPA, indef'd
Licks-rocks (T-C-L) - changed vote to delete
Doxastic1000 (T-C-L) - still an editor in good standing
Casdmo (T-C-L) - obviously involved but still an editor in good standing
Qwaiiplayer (T-C-L) - changed vote to redirect
Queer Linguist (T-C-L) - only 2 edits total
Strippy6 (T-C-L) - resurrected user
SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (T-C-L) - wants an article discussing use of the term itself
Qirtaiba (T-C-L) - Jeremy Malcom, indef'd, asking to be unblocked

So Wikipedia admins have a few things to clean up. I'm not going to out anyone or accuse them of being a pedophile, but let's look a couple of those editors to see if we can spot anything problematic.

Pokelova
Pokelova is a furry from New Zealand who seems fully immersed in the worst of Gen Z internet culture. There's a Mastadon account with the same name on a server that seems to specialize in, uh, technically legal cartoon porn possibly involving cartoon children. It's very NSFW but at least they warn you and make you click to see the images. If you really want to see Pokelova's artwork here is the link. Their profile there links to a profile on a fetish role-playing site which lists the things they are into.

Just the things listed under "Faves" in Pokelova's profile.
3+ Penetration
Age Differences
Alternate Universe
Anal Fisting
Anal Pregnancy
Dick Cleavage
Exhibitionism
Flaccid Cocks
Gaping (Anal)
Hyper Cocks
Incest
Incest (Parental)
Informality
Large Cocks
Male Pregnancy
Monkeys / Primates
Piss Enemas
Public Use
Sex Through Clothes
Son Swap
Speedo
Underage Characters
Underwear Bulges
Watersports
Zoophilia

A Twitter user said:

I've known this for a while and I wish I said something sooner, but he's popular so I'd probably just get hosed by the cub apologists. I have reason to believe e621 user pokelova/pokeIova is him too.

Just be good at art and dont be paedophiles, jesus christ.

I can't see the tweet they are replying to, so perhaps it is very innocent when seen in context.

Doxastic1000
After a 6 month absence, suddenly logs on to vote in that AfD. Past edits include creating an article about Stephen Kershnar (T-H-L), whose relevance can be gleaned in the headline SUNY Fredonia professor reassigned after controversial adult-child sex comments. They also edited an article about a book involving a pedophile headmaster at a boys school. Their most recent edits before the AfD were edit-warring to change "rape" to "have sex with" in the plot description of the movie The Wonder. When they were rebuffed, they left a question on the talk page:

Did Anna's brother rape her?

There is some disagreement here about whether Anna's brother actually raped her. I could have misunderstood it, but the dialogue suggested to me a consensual (albeit incestuous, of course) relationship, rather than a rape.

Anna is portrayed in the movie as being about 10 to 12 years old.

[eppur si muove]

Oh. I may have misparsed Pokelova. I took the name to be an East European female surname. But I now think it must be Poke(mon) lover, So I misgendered them. Presumably as they think they are an animal, I shoould have referred to them as "it" rather than "she".

[Giraffe Stapler]

Oh. I may have misparsed Pokelova. I took the name to be an East European female surname. But I now think it must be Poke(mon) lover, So I misgendered them. Presumably as they think they are an animal, I shoould have referred to them as "it" rather than "she".

I believe they currently identify as a woman. (And, yes, it is Pokemon lover.)

[eppur si muove]

Doxastic1000
After a 6 month absence, suddenly logs on to vote in that AfD. Past edits include creating an article about Stephen Kershnar (T-H-L), whose relevance can be gleaned in the headline SUNY Fredonia professor reassigned after controversial adult-child sex comments...

MY preliminary look at the Kershnar article shows Doxstatic doing a pair of edits link whose effect is to add mentions of Kershnar's supporters over the child sex comments. There are no corresponding mention of his critics. So the effect is to impose a POV.

[eppur si muove]

I've now looked at how Doxastic left the article after their initial edits which included a summary of Kershnar's books. A certain 5-letter word sprang to mind to describe the man and, sure enough, the appropriate search turns up results starting with link:

I've got a troll at my school. It sucks. Now the nation is going to think we're all assholes.
His name is Stephen Kershnar. I really wish he would just stop.

Of course, he's part of a two and a half thousand year-old tradition

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
sophist
noun
noun: sophist; plural noun: sophists
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, associated in popular thought with moral scepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but false arguments.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Beyond My Ken showed up on Jeremy Malcom/Qirtaiba's talk page for a spot of gravedancing. I was quite enjoying the catty back and forth when I spotted a very old message on the talk page from a familiar user.

Delegable proxy

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a delegable proxy system at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. If you would like to participate in this experiment, you may nominate a proxy at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla may be better known as the late Nathan Larson (criminal) (T-H-L), a self-declared pedophile. I can't find any onwiki interaction prior to or after this. Qirtaiba had made a total of 9 edits by this point so it seems unlikely that they would have drawn the attention of Larson based on their Wikipedia contributions,

[ScotFinnRadish]

Has anyone noticed that if you fed an AI the prompt "read all of Qirtaiba's edits on Wikipedia and generate an image of what they'd look like" it would likely generate the picture on their userpage?

Hi there! Do you have any more information about Google banning searches for lolicon from April 2010, as you mention on the Lolicon talk page? You can email me jeremy@prostasia.org if that's easier than responding on Wikipedia. Background: I am from a nonprofit interested in taking action about this.

[eppur si muove]

Beyond My Ken showed up on Jeremy Malcom/Qirtaiba's talk page for a spot of gravedancing. I was quite enjoying the catty back and forth when I spotted a very old message on the talk page from a familiar user.

Delegable proxy

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a delegable proxy system at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. If you would like to participate in this experiment, you may nominate a proxy at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla may be better known as the late Nathan Larson (criminal) (T-H-L), a self-declared pedophile. I can't find any onwiki interaction prior to or after this. Qirtaiba had made a total of 9 edits by this point so it seems unlikely that they would have drawn the attention of Larson based on their Wikipedia contributions,

Malcolm has deleted both the "catty back and forth" and the message from Larson. One of his removed comments incldues this:

The personal smears that have been made against me and other editors during this affair have been absolutely beyond the pale, if not outright defamatory. Rest assured that I, for one, am not going to stand for it.

However Malcolm himself has a history of tweets like this one https://archive.is/AMxNI. which the subject of the tweet described as the tweet as "false information ... circulated on social media by Prostasia's executive director in order to discredit me." link

[eppur si muove]

I was looking at the chat page for Tom Willett (T-H-L) and noticed that our friend MrPinkingShears (T-C-L) had been active there. In fact his first edit was there at the start of this month. Could Mr Shears be one of our readers?

I'm surprised that during the recent purging of paedophilia advocates, it wasn't pointed out on WIkipedia that Mr WIllett, a "minor-attracted person" who has been convicted of three counts relating to his sexual activity with youths at the children's homes where he volunteered and violated his duty of care, still has an active account Yonhope (T-C-L). Any Wikipedia admins interested in this can go over to our Watermelon man thread link.

[Scorpions13256]

This debacle has inspired me to write a controversial esssay. Don't read it right now as it is not done and badly written.

The essay will be called "No pedophiles" and it will be similar to the child protection policy, but it will explicitly make being a non-offending pedophile a blockable offense because we can't be sure they are not prone to radicalization.

[eppur si muove]

The essay will be called "No pedophiles" and it will be similar to the child protection policy, but it will explicitly make being a non-offending pedophile a blockable offense because we can't be sure they are not prone to radicalization.

I think identifying as one is the issue. Why would anyone in today's climate do so unless they are making a point with advocacy overtones?

Banning people for just being one is a problem For a start, how do you know? Saying someone has edited too many articles about schools, child stars or the Harry Potter books is a bit tenuous. Though once we are already suspicious of someone such as Yonhope, we can note that his only non-self-promoting edit was to add "Johnny also achieved fame as a muscular young bodybuilder while in his teens. He was on the covers of the magazines Tomorrow's Man and Model Parade." to the BLP of someone whose only claim to fame was a Billboard 100 released when he was 15.

[tinyboxs]

This debacle has inspired me to write a controversial esssay. Don't read it right now as it is not done and badly written.

The essay will be called "No pedophiles" and it will be similar to the child protection policy, but it will explicitly make being a non-offending pedophile a blockable offense because we can't be sure they are not prone to radicalization.

But how will Wikiproject Anime and Manga survive? /hj

[eppur si muove]

it will explicitly make being a non-offending pedophile a blockable offense

But how will Wikiproject Anime and Manga survive? /hj