Wikipediocracy

On February 2nd the enwiki arbcom banned PeioR (T-C-L) after prompting from behind the scenes, for reasons that are obvious considering his contributions. That makes them the sixth wikimedia foundation project that has banned that particular account for its particular obsession. The person behind it remains active as of today promoting pedophilia, as PeioR and Pangea, and who knows what other accounts, because the wikimedia foundation has apparently declined to act.

And all for the little girl in Africa...
Pedophile press (T-H-L)
List of pedophile activist organizations (T-H-L)
Paedo Alert News (T-H-L)
Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons (T-H-L)
Are All Men Pedophiles? (T-H-L)
The International Journal of Greek Love (T-H-L)
Paedophile Information Exchange (T-H-L)
Paedophilia: The Radical Case (T-H-L)
etc...

DanMurphy wrote:And all for the little girl in Africa...
Pedophile press (T-H-L)
List of pedophile activist organizations (T-H-L)
Paedo Alert News (T-H-L)
Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons (T-H-L)
Are All Men Pedophiles? (T-H-L)
The International Journal of Greek Love (T-H-L)
Paedophile Information Exchange (T-H-L)
Paedophilia: The Radical Case (T-H-L)
etc...

That "etc" really bothers me. As if the list you have isn't bad enough, there is more?

There's a blog post in here somewheres. Goodness knows, there's been enough pro-pedo editors over the years.

(as Eric Barbour put it, "Safe for children? Wikipedia isn't even safe for adults")

I looked briefly at the contribution history of Peior and didn't detect anything incriminating him or her as a pedophile, though clearly he or she is focused on the subject. The fact that a person is focused on the subject of pedophilia does not mean he or she is a pedophile.

Triptych wrote:I looked briefly at the contribution history of Peior and didn't detect anything incriminating him or her as a pedophile, though clearly he or she is focused on the subject. The fact that a person is focused on the subject of pedophilia does not mean he or she is a pedophile.

He is an activist who is using wikipedia projects in an attempt to normalize pedophilia. Did you look at his contributions in Catalan, Portuguese, Interlingua, French, Spanish, Galacian or Esperanto? Did you examine what he's doing on Wikidata?

Triptych wrote:I looked briefly at the contribution history of Peior and didn't detect anything incriminating him or her as a pedophile, though clearly he or she is focused on the subject. The fact that a person is focused on the subject of pedophilia does not mean he or she is a pedophile.

I do not know if the individual is a pedophile or not, but it seems fairly clear that Peior is engaged in pro-pedophilia activism. The "pedophile press" article in its original state, for instance, was rather blatantly pro-pedophilia. "Boylove" was used in the editorial voice repeatedly while anti-child abuse was put in quotations. Although that particular POV issue was remedied by other editors, the article is still clearly written by someone who has a rather fond view of pedophilia and pedophilia activists.

tarantino wrote:That makes them the sixth wikimedia foundation project that has banned that particular account

Is there a proposal on Meta for a global ban? Or is that person not nearly so bad as say DanielTom?

Poetlister wrote:Is there a proposal on Meta for a global ban? Or is that person not nearly so bad as say DanielTom?

Global bans are only used against those with many (or a few powerful) enemies. PeioR is a relatively obscure figure, especially on enwiki where he or she only contributed 148 revisions.

What's scary is that PeioR isn't yet banned from iawiki (7,516 revisions) or ptwiki (2,042 revisions). I would like to start a global ban discussion, but I would be blocked if I called someone a pedophile on-wiki.

Poetlister wrote:

tarantino wrote:That makes them the sixth wikimedia foundation project that has banned that particular account

Is there a proposal on Meta for a global ban? Or is that person not nearly so bad as say DanielTom?

I may be mistaken but I don’t see much of a problem with Mr Tom. Here he is politely but very firmly suggesting that “User:Deskana is not just very abusive, but also dishonest (by deliberately misrepresenting emails)”. Note that in the replies no one is challenging him on grounds of the evidence, but are accusing him of ‘harassment’.

That’s only one diff, of course, I’m sure it gets worse.

DanielTom is also on an interaction ban at the English Wikiquote with user Cirt

Again, not seeing a problem there.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:What's scary is that PeioR isn't yet banned from iawiki (7,516 revisions) or ptwiki (2,042 revisions).

@ArbCom: Did you contact WP:OFFICE in order to have PeioR dealt with on the non-English Wikipedia's yet?

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:What's scary is that PeioR isn't yet banned from iawiki (7,516 revisions) or ptwiki (2,042 revisions).

@ArbCom: Did you contact WP:OFFICE in order to have PeioR dealt with on the non-English Wikipedia's yet?

I have. Repeatedly now.

Alison wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:What's scary is that PeioR isn't yet banned from iawiki (7,516 revisions) or ptwiki (2,042 revisions).

@ArbCom: Did you contact WP:OFFICE in order to have PeioR dealt with on the non-English Wikipedia's yet?

I have. Repeatedly now.

Whoa, whoa, whoa little missy... jes' hold up a gosh durn minute...

Mr Phillipe is in a bad way and needs hisself some more time fer mournin' 'bout PC2 and Kww.

Dem pedophiles can jes wait.

Poetlister wrote:

tarantino wrote:That makes them the sixth wikimedia foundation project that has banned that particular account

Is there a proposal on Meta for a global ban? Or is that person not nearly so bad as say DanielTom?

Good gravy. Poetlister gets +1 interweb.

What I cannot understand is why the user is blocked, but his "contributions" are left to be.
The same with this Jim Burton (T-C-L) He's blocked for "Pattern of Pedophile advocacy" but the Pedophile advocacy itself Paedophile Information Exchange (T-H-L) is still on Wikipedia.
Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

SB_Johnny wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

tarantino wrote:That makes them the sixth wikimedia foundation project that has banned that particular account

Is there a proposal on Meta for a global ban? Or is that person not nearly so bad as say DanielTom?

Good gravy. Poetlister gets +1 interweb.

See Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister started by foundation board member Samuel Klein.

neved wrote:Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22squeakbox%22+site%3Aboychat.org

D8

ArbCom really needs to do something.

Edit: Whoops, it's an impersonator. Sorry. SqueakBox should contact foxnews.com about this.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

neved wrote:Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22squeakbox%22+site%3Aboychat.org&oq=%22squeakbox%22+site%3Aboychat.org

D8

SqueakBox was definitely not a pro-pedo editor on WP, and was one of those people who went to war with Ssbohio (T-C-L). Ssbohio would eventually get banned by ArbCom. There's a ton of information on SqueakBox's pedo-wars on WR, but it's inaccessible right now. I also vaguely remember hearing that the SqueakBox account on boychat.org was a joe-job by one of his "fans" over there.

Edit: Wikisposure archived link --> http://archive.is/VeDLu
Evil-unveiled link --> http://evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia_Campaign

SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles - llywrch

Here's an entire article on SqueakBox, where he's accused of being an "AntiPed" amongst other things. They really don't like him at all ....

neved wrote:Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

The boychat user is a impersonator. SqueakBox (T-C-L) made many enemies among the pro-pedophile activists.

neved wrote:What I cannot understand is why the user is blocked, but his "contributions" are left to be.
The same with this Jim Burton (T-C-L) He's blocked for "Pattern of Pedophile advocacy" but the Pedophile advocacy itself Paedophile Information Exchange (T-H-L) is still on Wikipedia.
Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

The "SqueakBox" on "BoyChat" was an obvious joe job seeing as the "hysterical antiped" who nominated the Marthijn Uittenbogaard (T-C-L) bio for deletion was SqueakBox. Either someone was mad that Squeak had nominated the page for deletion or was just trying to fuck with Squeak.

tarantino wrote:

Triptych wrote:I looked briefly at the contribution history of Peior and didn't detect anything incriminating him or her as a pedophile, though clearly he or she is focused on the subject. The fact that a person is focused on the subject of pedophilia does not mean he or she is a pedophile.

He is an activist who is using wikipedia projects in an attempt to normalize pedophilia. Did you look at his contributions in Catalan, Portuguese, Interlingua, French, Spanish, Galacian or Esperanto? Did you examine what he's doing on Wikidata?

No to all, Tarantino. You have clearly taken the time to examine his edits more thoroughly than I. Please everybody don't read me as necessarily defending this person, I am only trying to say slow down and approach things analytically before labeling someone a pedophile because of the emotional revulsion we properly and justly feel about pedophilia. To be even clearer about it I say that pedophilia is wrong and horrible because children are not sexual beings and the pervert who preys on a child for gratification of his or her own selfish and sick sexual desires damages it for life.

Now, you say Peior wants to "normalize pedophilia." It was a bit of an eye-opener to see those articles Dan Murphy pointed out above. Jeez, Wikipedia is covering all that? Some of them seem to be disappearing, which is another indication that the criticism provided by this website has an effect. TDA responds to me that Peior's editing on pedophilia has a sympathetic or favorable "tone," so I tried to check that out:

portion of Peior's original draft of Wikipedia pedophile press article wrote:In 1987 was launched in Netherland Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, a scholarly journal which took a positive scholarly approach towards the study of pedophilia.[12] From the beginning, Paidika differentiated from other boylove-related publications. It had a professional layout and an impressive editorial board which reviewed the submissions to the journal. During its nine years of publication, Paidika managed to remain faithful to Bullough's (1990, 320) observation and publish a great number of well researched scholarly articles. D.H. Mader's study of pederasty in the Bible[13] and Robert Bauserman's cross-cultural study of boylove [14] are two much quoted pieces. Moreover, what we know about boylovers like Karol Szymanowski[15] and Jacques d'Adelsward-Fersen[16] are through articles published in Paidika. Nevertheless, despite its scholarly merit, the journal was often attacked and discredited as a "pedophile magazine".[17] The fact that it had an activist aspect allowed many people to downplay the importance of research published in the journal. Bullough and others were attacked for being in its editorial board, while Laura Schlessinger and other "anti-child abuse" lobbyers tried to discredit academics that have published or given interviews in Paidika (like Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Ralph Underwager.[18][19][20]

So what do we have here? That's just a piece of it, on the whole the article is a comprehensive and historical list of pedophilia-related publications, a list that could be viewed as either informational or alternately as an online resource for pedophiles chasing their desires. But the paragraph, as TDA sees it, has a pro-pedophilia tone. Does it? It uses "boylove" as standard vocabulary, and arguably places scare quotes or "sarcastiquotes" around the uncontroversial terms "pedophile magazine" and "anti-child abuse." That's not enough for me to say it has a pro-pedophilia tone. "Boylove" could signify a negative view of it by Peior, couldn't it? As in "you disgusting boylover." The terms Peior put in quotes probably are quoting the references (they go to actual books, not instantly checkable online sources).

In his next paragraph though he does say "Koinos magazine is published every four months and can be purchased through international order and a limited number of distributors in the Netherlands and Germany." At first read, yeah that is promotional, but then I thought no, he is only telling us that this magazine is an ongoing commercial enterprise. Here's the link to the article if you want to go look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =494161964.

So, what is the verdict on Peior? I just don't know, it'd take too much time to slog through all the rest of that. If there's a "smoking gun" diff, you people haven't pointed to it that I noticed. Having reviewed only the "Pedophile press" article, it seems to me to be worthy of a Wikipedia article for the information it provides about an important subject.

neved wrote: Also why that SqueakBox (T-C-L) who was even featured in this story is still happily editing Wikipedia.

Enough people already refuted the idea that Squeakbox is a "boychat" participant like Fox News reported but I'll also chime in that I have a positive impression of him or her and Fox News is full of baloney.

The portion quoted reads to me as supportive of the magazine against the implied short-sightedness of its critics. The use of the term "boylove" rather than the tradition term "pederasty" (meaning boy lust) also indicates that this is an apologia.