Wikipedia censorship of MAP related topics - Revision history

Jim Burton: /* Richard Weiss controversy */

2026-05-07T23:34:35Z

Richard Weiss controversy

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 7 May 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	The pinnacle of the Pedo-Wars controversy and a major turning point, was the politically-influenced decision to retain the services of the British-born, renowned [[anti]]-pedophile edit warrior, [[Richard Weiss]] (Squeakbox) and his sockpuppets. This remains to this day, one of the all-time most blatant abuses of administrative privilege on the encyclopedia - if it is to be held that Jimbo Wales was not behind the decision.		The pinnacle of the Pedo-Wars controversy and a major turning point, was the politically-influenced decision to retain the services of the British-born, renowned [[anti]]-pedophile edit warrior, [[Richard Weiss]] (Squeakbox) and his sockpuppets. This remains to this day, one of the all-time most blatant abuses of administrative privilege on the encyclopedia - if it is to be held that Jimbo Wales was not behind the decision.

	Through various suspected sock puppet reports, it was established that accounts were being used throughout ''Pedophilia Article Watch'' to fabricate consensus and escape the three-revert-rule. These edits, particularly by the account Pol64, always reverted to the initial edits of Weiss, an avowed fighter of "pedophile disruption" known for previous sock puppetry and attempts to silence other editors by labeling them pedophiles. Interestingly, these edits also contained grammatical/typographical errors that uncannily resembled those made by Weiss. It was noted by investigating editors, that Pol64 would typically compile a list of edits that appended perfectly on to the end of Weiss' earlier session, and vice versa. These concerns were initially ignored due to Weiss' use of geographically unrelated proxy IPs to evade detection.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox Squeakbox (Weiss) request for checkuser]</ref> This inspired the user '''Dyskolos''' (Daniel Lievre) to compile an exhaustive list of timed edit sessions, effectively proving that Richard Weiss was regularly and frantically switching between his main account and Pol64.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SqueakBox_(3rd) SqueakBox (Weiss) suspected sock puppet log]</ref> Indeed, as the detailed list revealed, Weiss was barely leaving enough time between these puppeteering vacations to afford himself a simple tea break. The report, was nevertheless dismissed out of hand, confirming that Wikipedia would now not be willing to punish even the most obvious examples of abuse, if it ~~were deemed to~~ be ~~countering~~ the "pedophile point of view". One editor familiar with these exchanges recalls seeing at least one admin's comments expressing skepticism towards Weiss' activities being "rolled back", strongly suggesting the involvement of oversight from ArbCom or above.		Through various suspected sock puppet reports, it was established that accounts were being used throughout ''Pedophilia Article Watch'' to fabricate consensus and escape the three-revert-rule. These edits, particularly by the account Pol64, always reverted to the initial edits of Weiss, an avowed fighter of "pedophile disruption" known for previous sock puppetry and attempts to silence other editors by labeling them pedophiles. Interestingly, these edits also contained grammatical/typographical errors that uncannily resembled those made by Weiss. It was noted by investigating editors, that Pol64 would typically compile a list of edits that appended perfectly on to the end of Weiss' earlier session, and vice versa. These concerns were initially ignored due to Weiss' use of geographically unrelated proxy IPs to evade detection.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox Squeakbox (Weiss) request for checkuser]</ref> This inspired the user '''Dyskolos''' (Daniel Lievre) to compile an exhaustive list of timed edit sessions, effectively proving that Richard Weiss was regularly and frantically switching between his main account and Pol64.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SqueakBox_(3rd) SqueakBox (Weiss) suspected sock puppet log]</ref> Indeed, as the detailed list revealed, Weiss was barely leaving enough time between these puppeteering vacations to afford himself a simple tea break. The report, was nevertheless dismissed out of hand, confirming that Wikipedia would now not be willing to punish even the most obvious examples of abuse, lest it be seen as supporting the "pedophile point of view". One editor familiar with these exchanges recalls seeing at least one admin's comments expressing skepticism towards Weiss' activities being "rolled back", strongly suggesting the involvement of oversight from ArbCom or above.

	It is a comic irony, that in a belated 2010 investigation<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-pedophiles-find-a-home-on-wikipedia FOX News: Pedophiles find a home on Wikipedia]</ref> into pedophile-related editing activity on Wikipedia, Fox News implied that Weiss (Squeakbox) had posted on [[BoyChat]] soliciting votes against the deletion of [[Marthijn Uittenbogaard]]'s article. Of course, a BoyChat user had ironically used Weiss' screen name to troll him on BC, and prevent his own Wikipedian identity from being revealed.		It is a comic irony, that in a belated 2010 investigation<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-pedophiles-find-a-home-on-wikipedia FOX News: Pedophiles find a home on Wikipedia]</ref> into pedophile-related editing activity on Wikipedia, Fox News implied that Weiss (Squeakbox) had posted on [[BoyChat]] soliciting votes against the deletion of [[Marthijn Uittenbogaard]]'s article. Of course, a BoyChat user had ironically used Weiss' screen name to troll him on BC, and prevent his own Wikipedian identity from being revealed.

Jim Burton at 14:20, 29 October 2025

2025-10-29T14:20:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 29 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__<div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div>		__NOTOC__<div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right; width:360px">__TOC__</div>
	Online encyclopedia [['''Wikipedia''']] (founded in January 2001 by current head [[Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales\|Jimmy Wales]] and former head [[Wikipedia:Larry Sanger\|Larry Sanger]]) is famous for claiming to be neutral and "consensus driven". The experience of online MAPs instead shows that material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales Role Of Jimmy Wales - Wikipedia documentation]</ref> and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable or harmful to its image. This flouting of principles, is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of [[Research: Youth sexuality\|child and youth sexuality]] and [[paraphilia]]s. Wikipedia's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on MAP editors has been cited as the inspiration for a gun prank by Connor Weston in 2025, where no one was hurt.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/17/nyregion/wikipedia-conference-gunman.html NYT on Connor Weston's stunt]</ref>		Online encyclopedia [['''Wikipedia''']] (founded in January 2001 by current head [[Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales\|Jimmy Wales]] and former head [[Wikipedia:Larry Sanger\|Larry Sanger]]) is famous for claiming to be neutral and "consensus driven". The experience of online MAPs instead shows that material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales Role Of Jimmy Wales - Wikipedia documentation]</ref> and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable or harmful to its image. This flouting of principles, is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of [[Research: Youth sexuality\|child and youth sexuality]] and [[paraphilia]]s. Wikipedia's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on MAP editors has been cited as the inspiration for a gun prank by Connor Weston in 2025, where no one was hurt.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/17/nyregion/wikipedia-conference-gunman.html NYT on Connor Weston's stunt]</ref>

Jim Burton: /* Pedo Wars */

2025-10-18T17:15:00Z

Pedo Wars

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 18 October 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	====Pedo Wars====		====Pedo Wars====

	It was ~~at this time,~~ around late 2006/early 2007, that pro-MAP activists responded to the previous blocks en-masse by creating anonymous accounts and attempting to alter editorial consensus. Favored edits introduced citations refuting the pathological theory of [[Pedophilia]], and cited examples of [[CSA]] research contesting the narrative of universal harm (material such as [[Rind et al]]). This sparked a number of edit-wars and confrontations, attracting both administrators and [[anti]]-pedophile activists to the articles and their discussion pages. At this point, some high level Wikipedians personally contacted some of the more influential activist editors, attempting to explain the publicity risks of rampant, polarized special interest editing. This was of course a just warning, albeit against ''exactly'' the type of editing Wikipedia had tolerated for many years from victimological, therapeutic-interventionist and traumatology-led editors posing as disinterested specialists. It was for this reason, the appeals fell on deaf ears. The reaction that followed, towards "inclusionist" pro-MAP editing patterns - was sometimes indiscriminate, leading to arbitrary accusations of sockpuppetry and "pro-pedophile disruption" - an often stated rationale for blocking. As this "witch-hunt" reaction snowballed, accounts were often blocked regardless of activist affiliation, for editing patterns no more outlandish than citations of peer-reviewed research on related articles. It is also believed that highly abusive (i.e. "simultaneous") sock-puppetry was used on multiple occasions by [[anti]]-MAP activists in order to skirt around the "three revert rule" and to fabricate editor consensus. Many pro-MAP activists fought on, creating new identities after their initial bans - some getting through 10 or more identities before giving up. According to one editor, it was a running joke to compare the number of edits they got to before being banned, with 150 the marque of a skillful activist editor. In one particularly egregious incident, Administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic Dominic Byrd-McDevitt] claimed that he had forensic evidence to link two accounts and justify a block by east718. We knew immediately, this was incorrect (see Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue in the list below), as both users were on our list of activists, but had never met one another. If McDevitt did indeed fabricate this evidence, it must then follow he lied to other sysops to cover himself.		It was around late 2006/early 2007, that pro-MAP activists responded to the previous blocks en-masse by creating anonymous accounts and attempting to alter editorial consensus. Favored edits introduced citations refuting the pathological theory of [[Pedophilia]], and cited examples of [[CSA]] research contesting the narrative of universal harm (material such as [[Rind et al]]). This sparked a number of edit-wars and confrontations, attracting both administrators and [[anti]]-pedophile activists to the articles and their discussion pages. At this point, some high level Wikipedians personally contacted some of the more influential activist editors, attempting to explain the publicity risks of rampant, polarized special interest editing. This was of course a just warning, albeit against ''exactly'' the type of editing Wikipedia had tolerated for many years from victimological, therapeutic-interventionist and traumatology-led editors posing as disinterested specialists. It was for this reason, the appeals fell on deaf ears. The reaction that followed, towards "inclusionist" pro-MAP editing patterns - was sometimes indiscriminate, leading to arbitrary accusations of sockpuppetry and "pro-pedophile disruption" - an often stated rationale for blocking. As this "witch-hunt" reaction snowballed, accounts were often blocked regardless of activist affiliation, for editing patterns no more outlandish than citations of peer-reviewed research on related articles. It is also believed that highly abusive (i.e. "simultaneous") sock-puppetry was used on multiple occasions by [[anti]]-MAP activists in order to skirt around the "three revert rule" and to fabricate editor consensus. Many pro-MAP activists fought on, creating new identities after their initial bans - some getting through 10 or more identities before giving up. According to one editor, it was a running joke to compare the number of edits they got to before being banned, with 150 the marque of a skillful activist editor. In one particularly egregious incident, Administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic Dominic Byrd-McDevitt] claimed that he had forensic evidence to link two accounts and justify a block by east718. We knew immediately, this was incorrect (see Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue in the list below), as both users were on our list of activists, but had never met one another. If McDevitt did indeed fabricate this evidence, it must then follow he lied to other sysops to cover himself.

	====[[Richard Weiss]] controversy====		====[[Richard Weiss]] controversy====

Jim Burton: /* Interlude Commentary */

2025-10-18T17:14:10Z

Interlude Commentary

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 18 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	The first MAP activists to edit Wikipedia (2004 onward) didn't attempt to hide the fact. Users such as [[Rookiee]]<ref>[https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/goode-paedophiles_in_society.pdf Goode, section 2/3]</ref> (the host of [[Pedologues]]), Zanthalon ([[AP]]) and Clayboy were blocked because of the publicity risk they posed to the project. One controversy involved a "userbox/template" which identified an editor as a Pedophile on their user page<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war Pedo userbox war]</ref> - leading to arguments among Wikipedians over freedom of speech and the temporary banning of admins who opposed the template. This would be considered a near-impossibility nowadays. The crucial period of this 2nd era, started with an uptick in the level of anonymous editing in 2007. This was a period in which numerous edit wars raged, information was removed due to the perceived ''motivation or bad faith'' of editors, and the associated publicity risks. This was the "witch hunt" we refer to as the "Pedo Wars", and our narrative of that period continues after the short commentary below.		The first MAP activists to edit Wikipedia (2004 onward) didn't attempt to hide the fact. Users such as [[Rookiee]]<ref>[https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/goode-paedophiles_in_society.pdf Goode, section 2/3]</ref> (the host of [[Pedologues]]), Zanthalon ([[AP]]) and Clayboy were blocked because of the publicity risk they posed to the project. One controversy involved a "userbox/template" which identified an editor as a Pedophile on their user page<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war Pedo userbox war]</ref> - leading to arguments among Wikipedians over freedom of speech and the temporary banning of admins who opposed the template. This would be considered a near-impossibility nowadays. The crucial period of this 2nd era, started with an uptick in the level of anonymous editing in 2007. This was a period in which numerous edit wars raged, information was removed due to the perceived ''motivation or bad faith'' of editors, and the associated publicity risks. This was the "witch hunt" we refer to as the "Pedo Wars", and our narrative of that period continues after the short commentary below.

	====~~Interlude Commentary~~====		====Analysis - Jim Burton, 2021, revised 2025 following attack on convention====
			<blockquote>
	~~'''Wikipedia's inherent weakness'''~~

	One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is a vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. In general, moderate editors (with no partisan leanings), will be less enthused about hot-button subjects, have less knowledge, and be less likely to contest attempts to revert their edits.		One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is a vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. In general, moderate editors (with no partisan leanings), will be less enthused about hot-button subjects, have less knowledge, and be less likely to contest attempts to revert their edits.

Line 27:		Line 25:

	When MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a psychiatric/victimological bias throughout most of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch Pedophilia Article Watch]" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly scientific treatments outside the sphere of western medicine, such as sociology, psychology, and ethnology. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to peddle grifts such as [[repressed memory]] - something that is now acknowledged in the culture of Wikipedia.		When MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a psychiatric/victimological bias throughout most of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch Pedophilia Article Watch]" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly scientific treatments outside the sphere of western medicine, such as sociology, psychology, and ethnology. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to peddle grifts such as [[repressed memory]] - something that is now acknowledged in the culture of Wikipedia.
			</blockquote>

	====Pedo Wars====		====Pedo Wars====

Jim Burton: /* Interlude Commentary */

2025-10-18T17:12:02Z

Interlude Commentary

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 18 October 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	'''Wikipedia's inherent weakness'''		'''Wikipedia's inherent weakness'''

	One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is ~~their~~ vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. ~~On average~~, ~~it is likely that~~ moderate editors (~~those~~ with no partisan leanings), will ~~have~~ less ~~natural interest in a subject~~, less knowledge ~~on it~~, and ~~are~~ less likely to ~~care about saving~~ their edits ~~from hostile actors~~. ~~This rule applies particularly to hot-button topics~~, ~~meaning unlikely consensus~~ has to be found on emotive, polarizing topics such as [[~~CSA~~]]. Negative bias can also creep in to some articles such as ~~"Pro-pedophile~~ activism", since any perception of "objectivity" towards topics that elicit visceral reactions might lead to self-censorship. At the ~~time pro~~-MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a ~~politically-correct, "~~victimological~~", psychiatry-led~~ bias throughout most of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch Pedophilia Article Watch]" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly outside of medicine. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to ~~pedal~~ grifts such as [[repressed memory]].		One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is a vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. In general, moderate editors (with no partisan leanings), will be less enthused about hot-button subjects, have less knowledge, and be less likely to contest attempts to revert their edits.

			Unlikely consensus, therefore, has to be found on emotive, polarizing topics such as [[Child Sexual Abuse]]. Negative bias can also creep in to some articles on topics such as [[MAP Movement\|MAP activism]], since any perception of "objectivity" towards topics that elicit visceral reactions might lead to self-censorship. There is also a tendency of editorial to default towards outdated sources that discuss now-folded initiatives with little relevance to the present-day debate.

			When MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a psychiatric/victimological bias throughout most of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch Pedophilia Article Watch]" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly scientific treatments outside the sphere of western medicine, such as sociology, psychology, and ethnology. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to peddle grifts such as [[repressed memory]] - something that is now acknowledged in the culture of Wikipedia.

	====Pedo Wars====		====Pedo Wars====

Jim Burton at 16:58, 18 October 2025

2025-10-18T16:58:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 18 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__<div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div>		__NOTOC__<div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div>
	~~Even though the online~~ encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] (founded in January 2001 by current head [[Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales\|Jimmy Wales]] and former head [[Wikipedia:Larry Sanger\|Larry Sanger]]) ~~still claims~~ to be neutral and "consensus driven", material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales Role Of Jimmy Wales - Wikipedia documentation]</ref> and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable or harmful to its image. This flouting of principles, is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of [[Research: Youth sexuality\|child and youth sexuality]] and [[paraphilia]]s. Sanger himself stated in 2020 that Wikipedia had by then become "badly biased" and completely abandoned its original neutrality policy.<ref>[https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Wikipedia is badly biased]. Personal website of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. May 14, 2020.</ref> Because of this, most Wikipedia articles that focus on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex]] ~~tend~~ to have a medical/psychiatric bias - expressed thru a combination of undue weight, cherry-picked advocacy science and weasel words.		Online encyclopedia [['''Wikipedia''']] (founded in January 2001 by current head [[Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales\|Jimmy Wales]] and former head [[Wikipedia:Larry Sanger\|Larry Sanger]]) is famous for claiming to be neutral and "consensus driven". The experience of online MAPs instead shows that material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales Role Of Jimmy Wales - Wikipedia documentation]</ref> and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable or harmful to its image. This flouting of principles, is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of [[Research: Youth sexuality\|child and youth sexuality]] and [[paraphilia]]s. Wikipedia's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on MAP editors has been cited as the inspiration for a gun prank by Connor Weston in 2025, where no one was hurt.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/17/nyregion/wikipedia-conference-gunman.html NYT on Connor Weston's stunt]</ref>

			==Background to controversies==

			Sanger himself stated in 2020 that Wikipedia had by then become "badly biased" and completely abandoned its original neutrality policy.<ref>[https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Wikipedia is badly biased]. Personal website of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. May 14, 2020.</ref> Because of this, most Wikipedia articles that focus on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex]] tended to have a medical/psychiatric bias - expressed thru a combination of undue weight, cherry-picked advocacy science and weasel words.

	While much of the material now removed from Wikipedia appears to be legitimate, sourced content from a neutral or contrarian perspective,<ref>See for example, archives of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&oldid=1086334416#2011 pages removed from under the auspices of Pedophile Article Watch]</ref> previous bans on a small number self-identifying [[pedophile]] editors (in late 2006 and early 2007) exacerbated perceptions of any editing that may be considered similar in style. Users who "may bring the project into disrepute" were blocked "per directive"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=125487687&diffonly=1 Discussion of blocking as per directive of ArbCom]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VigilancePrime&oldid=208864891 VigilancePrime UserTalk log]</ref> by the arbitration committee - a select group of site administrators who converse in private. In 2010, a policy was enacted to formalize ostracism of "pedophiles" and their apologists. For many months, this policy made no reference to children, and openly advised administrators to cover-up accusations of "pedophilia" and pro-pedophile editing patterns. This document was later revised as a child-protection policy, despite having never previously referred to children's safety, only the banning of pedophiles due to the publicity "damage" they may cause.<ref name="PEDOpolicy" />		While much of the material now removed from Wikipedia appears to be legitimate, sourced content from a neutral or contrarian perspective,<ref>See for example, archives of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&oldid=1086334416#2011 pages removed from under the auspices of Pedophile Article Watch]</ref> previous bans on a small number self-identifying [[pedophile]] editors (in late 2006 and early 2007) exacerbated perceptions of any editing that may be considered similar in style. Users who "may bring the project into disrepute" were blocked "per directive"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=125487687&diffonly=1 Discussion of blocking as per directive of ArbCom]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VigilancePrime&oldid=208864891 VigilancePrime UserTalk log]</ref> by the arbitration committee - a select group of site administrators who converse in private. In 2010, a policy was enacted to formalize ostracism of "pedophiles" and their apologists. For many months, this policy made no reference to children, and openly advised administrators to cover-up accusations of "pedophilia" and pro-pedophile editing patterns. This document was later revised as a child-protection policy, despite having never previously referred to children's safety, only the banning of pedophiles due to the publicity "damage" they may cause.<ref name="PEDOpolicy" />

Jim Burton: /* Commentary following initial actions in the 00s */

2025-10-12T16:09:52Z

Commentary following initial actions in the 00s

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 12 October 2025
Line 172:		Line 172:

	<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>The term "NPOV" ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|Neutral Point Of View]]) refers to a Wikipedia policy whereby encyclopaedia content must be nonpartisan, even in relation to moderate or centrist points of view.</small>		<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>The term "NPOV" ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|Neutral Point Of View]]) refers to a Wikipedia policy whereby encyclopaedia content must be nonpartisan, even in relation to moderate or centrist points of view.</small>

			==External links==

			*[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/05/child-pornography-at-the-center-of-intra-wikipedia-warfare Child Pornography at the Center of Intra-Wikipedia Warfare]
			*[https://phys.org/news/2010-04-wikipedia-blasts-child-porn-website.html Wikipedia blasts talk of child porn at website]

	==References==		==References==

	[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Websites]][[Category:Websites: Academic]][[Category:Websites: Generic]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: International]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:History & Events]]		[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Websites]][[Category:Websites: Academic]][[Category:Websites: Generic]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: International]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:History & Events]]

Jim Burton at 12:53, 20 August 2025

2025-08-20T12:53:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 20 August 2025
Line 132:		Line 132:
	File:Bbb23.png\|The inquisition begins for the administrator who had the ''temerity'' to block an account for harassment! And yes, this did blow out into a full struggle-session, complete with forced confession.<ref name="ANI">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127 Bbb23's struggle session]</ref>		File:Bbb23.png\|The inquisition begins for the administrator who had the ''temerity'' to block an account for harassment! And yes, this did blow out into a full struggle-session, complete with forced confession.<ref name="ANI">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127 Bbb23's struggle session]</ref>
	File:Wikipediavalarian.png\|Part of the deletion discussion for "Stigma of pedophilia". Move along now...		File:Wikipediavalarian.png\|Part of the deletion discussion for "Stigma of pedophilia". Move along now...
			File:Wikipedos.png\|Raytheon vs CSA prevention example
	</gallery>		</gallery>

The Admins at 20:39, 9 January 2025

2025-01-09T20:39:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 9 January 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	===Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent===		===Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent===
	All of these editors were banned, and got only limited support from established Wikipedians such as Springeragh and Homologeo. Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets, although some are not linked explicitly for their security. The usual form of sockpuppetry was creation of a new account after banning. Simultaneous abuse was rare among this group. [[Wikisposure]] did their own research at the time, and got some of it right.<ref> [https://edramatica.com/Evil-unveiled.com/~~Wikipedia_CampaignED~~: Wikipedia Campaign] (originally a [[Wikisposure]] article)</ref>		All of these editors were banned, and got only limited support from established Wikipedians such as Springeragh and Homologeo. Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets, although some are not linked explicitly for their security. The usual form of sockpuppetry was creation of a new account after banning. Simultaneous abuse was rare among this group. [[Wikisposure]] did their own research at the time, and got some of it right.<ref> [https://edramatica.com/Evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia_Campaign ED: Wikipedia Campaign] (originally a [[Wikisposure]] article)</ref>

	<hr><div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">		<hr><div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">

The Admins at 20:38, 9 January 2025

2025-01-09T20:38:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 9 January 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	===Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent===		===Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent===
	All of these editors were banned, and got only limited support from established Wikipedians such as Springeragh and Homologeo. Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets, although some are not linked explicitly for their security. The usual form of sockpuppetry was creation of a new account after banning. Simultaneous abuse was rare among this group. [[Wikisposure]] did their own research at the time, and got some of it right.<ref>[https://~~encyclopediadramatica~~.~~online~~/Evil-unveiled.com/~~Wikipedia_Campaign ED~~: Wikipedia Campaign (originally a [[Wikisposure]] article)]</ref>		All of these editors were banned, and got only limited support from established Wikipedians such as Springeragh and Homologeo. Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets, although some are not linked explicitly for their security. The usual form of sockpuppetry was creation of a new account after banning. Simultaneous abuse was rare among this group. [[Wikisposure]] did their own research at the time, and got some of it right.<ref> [https://edramatica.com/Evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia_CampaignED: Wikipedia Campaign] (originally a [[Wikisposure]] article)</ref>

	<hr><div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">		<hr><div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">