Difference between revisions of "Wikipedian"
(→Meco: updated link to more recent revision containing the full conversation)
m (added link Wikipedia)
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
A '''Wikipedian''' is a user of Wikipedia.
A '''Wikipedian''' is a user of Wikipedia.
Revision as of 13:00, 31 October 2015
|Note this page is still under construction.|
A Wikipedian is a contributing user of Wikipedia.
Meco was blocked on the Wikimedia Commons in March 2015. He allegedly uploaded blurred child porn images, and allegedly said that was what they were, and sourced them to a court case. The name on the case, the defendant, was the same as his real name given on his user page. When it was deleted, he allegedly made a big public fuss about it, and called attention to the case record with his name as defendant. He had over 50,000 edits on en.wiki when blocked there in 2013, started editing in 2006. There was no block log, no talk page warning, nothing beyond the single "refer to ArbCom" block. It was clarified, "User:Meco was not blocked by ArbCom or on behalf of ArbCom, although only ArbCom can hear appeals from that user." On Commons, the charge was led by Michaeldsuarez. Wikipediocracy stated:
|“||“Editors who display a positive opinion of pedophilia” are by definition not neutral. Editors who “advocate age of consent reform” are advocating rather than neutrally and dispassionately recording what people have said about the subject.||”|
One user asked rhetorically, "But editors who display a negative opinion of pedophilia are neutral? We are talking, here, about off-wiki advocacy. If editors advocate age-of-consent reform with their editing, that's a problem, but the idea expressed here is that such loonies would be unable to edit neutrally. Only people who hate pedophiles with a consuming passion can be neutral. He might have been 'right,' i.e., it may not have been illegal. Of course, we can't tell, and neither can most administrators, it was oversighted. Can't have people looking at blurry child porn, after all. Their imaginations might run wild, and they will be corrupted. Think of the children! (And that was actually said) And Michaeldsuarez removed an image of him, with his user name in the filename, on it.wikipedia, calling him a pedophile. Basically, policy enforcement is very spotty. Can't have a photo of a known pedophile in an article on nudity, because kids might, might, might what? See the pedophile, recognize him by his attractive butt, or what? And go crazy, their life ruined?"
Alison is a feminist-leaning English Wikipedia checkuser and oversighter who does many of the sockpuppet investigations concerning editors who are referred to her attention by Flyer22 or by Wikipediocracy threads for being suspiciously experienced users editing pedophilia-related articles in ways that are contrary to the party line. She also reverts edits to Wikipedia's child protection policy, dismissing concerns by saying that the policy is "just fine" as it is. Alison will sometimes call users "pedo-apologist" in edit summaries.
Flyer22 is a highly active user who has essentially made the Wikipedia pedophilia article her private fiefdom since at least the early 2010s. She aggressively investigates possible returning banned users editing under sockpuppets within her areas of interest, and reports them to checkusers (especially Alison) to get them unmasked and blocked. She is sometimes mistaken for a pro-pedo editor on the basis of her interest in topics pertaining to "sexual deviance", but although she commented concerning the Wikipedia child protection policy, she did not criticize it or advocate changing it. In fact, she wrote that "this policy has been working fine for several years; got a lot of pedophiles and other adult-child sex advocates off Wikipedia, and now there is barely a problem with pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse pushing at articles about or relating to pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics." She also writes, "If you post anything on Wikipedia about your belief that sex with children is fine and dandy, similar to this guy's post, then watch out; unless you are discussing a complicated age of consent matter involving post-pubescents, then I will instantly have no respect for you and I will instantly want you off Wikipedia."
Flyer22 made the cogent point, "Alison, regarding this revert, how is the vague "inappropriate" wording "just fine," given what has been stated above in this section? How does that get across the point of this policy? I don't see what "inappropriate" can mean if it does not mean "sexual" in this case, or why we should stick to "inappropriate" to get across that we might mean something broader instead of specifying what that "broader" context is."
Jack-A-Roe is a veteran Wikipedia editor who imposes a victimological agenda on a range of articles related to child sexual abuse. It is possible that the person behind this account may be working on behalf of an organisation such as Perverted-Justice, or more plausibly an NGO or science-advocacy interest such as The Leadership Council. He claims that his interest in CSA is grounded in medical experience.
In not being banned for tendentious and somewhat abrasive early behaviour, Jack-A-Roe has achieved status as a credible editor. He is perhaps best decribed as a "civil POV pusher".
This user displays a range of behaviors that would appear to betray advanced agenda-pushing. For example, in managing citations he frequently removes convenience links to sites such as Ipce, using the WP:RS (Reliable Source) rationale, under which removal would be unnecessary where the primary source is listed.
MZMcBride created the first version of the Wikipedia policy on child protection as well as of the Meta-Wiki policy on child protection. He also censored remarks concerning censorship of the debate about censorship.
SqueakBox uses Wikipedia to promote an anti-paedophile agenda. He uses multiple accounts and even posts welcome messages to his sockpuppets . He has made edits relating to homosexuality, using the sockpuppet Skanking .
It is likely that SqueakBox uses software that allows him to log in with overseas internet service providers. Various checkuser requests on his other accounts have shown that most of his sockpuppets are operated from geographically unrelated ISPs - notably in the United Kingdom, where TV Genius is based. The sockpuppets' log-in times, stylistic betrayals and support of SqueakBox edits clearly show that they are operated by the same user. In many cases, strings of SqueakBox edits have been shown to be perfectly appended to strings of sock edits. Pol64 is a perfect example of this. Despite the case for massive abuse of the system, administrators continue to deny the blatant dishonesty of this already penalised sock-puppeteer, who is valued by both anti-pedophile editors and Perverted Justice - whom he cites as his inspiration.[Citation needed] On the other hand, his repeated accusations of pedophile-related activity towards other editors, blind, borderline-hysterical bias and general rudeness have been dealt with - albeit with an unusual level of lenience.
- Amateur Cyclone - Sock 3: IP Linked to Pol64.
- Pol64 - Sock 2: Clearly Weiss.
- Richard Weiss
- Skanking - Sock 1 - penalised for this.
- TV Genius
- Ztep - Sock 4 (used to evade block and further penalisation).
- "Undid revision 548894473 by The Devil's Advocate (talk) - it's a recipe for just fine, thanks. Talk page (I noticed you missed discussing this point)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChild_protection&diff=548906366&oldid=548894473
- "Actually, 'inappropriate' is just fine here." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChild_protection&diff=620565768&oldid=620515714