Guest blog post: Wikipedia's War Against Journalism

[Strelnikov]

This is a CrowsNest post looking at how journalists are personae non gratae inside Wikipedia.


Link: Wikipedia's War Against Journalism.

[Dysklyver]

Good post.

Of course the way Wikipedians are dealing with this is far from ideal, not sure if their policy of ignoring everything will work well for them here.

[Graaf Statler]

Yes, a big like. Keep on the good job, blog, write, document. It is important for the future, because you forget the details.

[CrowsNest]

Cheers Strel.

[Strelnikov]

The blog post that has gotten the most views (12132 as I write this) is one I did three years ago, Wikipedians Jimbo wants You to Forget: Jon Schillaci. Because Schillaci was a child molester, maker of child pornography, and short-time Wikipedian. I know there still must be the remnants of an early-2000s pedo ring buried within Commons or the back rooms of Wikipedia itself.

[ericbarbour]

I know there still must be the remnants of an early-2000s pedo ring buried within Commons or the back rooms of Wikipedia itself.

Quoting from the book wiki:

The exact definition of pedophilia has been a recurrent source of difficulty in the troubled history of Wikipedia articles about it. According to the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (itself a hardly unbiased source), pedophilia is "mutually consensual affective relationships between adults and children before the age of puberty, or undergoing puberty, occurring outside the family, and including a sexual component." They define 'pedophile' as an adult participant in such a relationship.

The authors reject the term pederasty as a synonym for it, for while they accept it as a form of pedophilia, they believe it should properly be restricted to the Greek custom it originally signified. In particular, they reject the view of apologists for homosexual relations with adolescents who want to separate "pederasty" from "pedophilia", given that in the Greek model these sexual relationships often began before the boy entered puberty.

Wikipedia's primary article is one of their oldest, created by early administrator Sjc on 2 September 2001. Sjc quit Wikipedia in evident disgust in 2010. The record indicates this version of the article was written over a previously-extant (and long) article; all histories of that version are lost thanks to the primitive wiki software Wikipedia was using in 2001. The article's subsequent history has been ruinous and crazy. By 2017 it had been edited more than 7,000 times, quite often by charming Wikipedians such as Andrea James (and her enemy James Cantor), plus known pedophiles Tyciol and ForesticPig (T-C-F-R-B). The busiest editors of the article are Jack-A-Roe (T-C-F-R-B) and Flyer22_Reborn (T-C-F-R-B), both longtime and secretive editors in the entire area of sexual paraphilias. In 2015 major revisions were made by Dr. James Heilman, shortly before he was elected to the WMF Board of Trustees (and quickly fired therefrom).

Wikipedians who don't have a problem with it

There's a very long list of them: for a few examples of "insiders" see Erik Möller, Corax, Pieter De Praetere, Rodhullandemu, Mark Wagner, Ralph Squillace and SqueakBox.
For persistent editors in the area (virtually all banned as of 2017), see Pedophilia subject editors. Also see in-depth coverage: Aaron Nadler, Akhilleus, Alarics, BLueRibbon, Daniel Lièvre, David Stodghill, For An Angel, Haiduc, LuxOfTKGL, Nathan Larson, Rookiee, Ssbohio, Vladimir Mozhenkov, Vigilanceprime and Zanthalon.
08:13, 8 July 2010 "Wow, saying somethins is a weak excuse is "misleading people about the purpose and effects of the policy"? You have to be kidding me. I don't agree with the policy (in this respect, no problem with blocks of advocates of pedophilia), and I believe that self-identifying as a pedophile (e.g. in a talk page discussion as a response against simplified pedophile-bashing comments, as I described on the policy talk page) doesn't have to be disruptive (not more disruptive than people declaring their nationality, religion, sexual preferences, or affiliation with the military may be to other people), and that all editors should be able to coopêrate with othere editors, no matter how criminal, despicable, or loathsome you find their ideas and background. If you have a discussion where X states "all racists want to kill jews", and Y states "I'm a racist, but I don'twant to kill anyone, I just don't want them in my country", then we wouldn't be blocking him. If Y would plaster his user page with a big "I'm a racist and proud of it! Whites are the best!" note, then he probably (hopefully) would be blocked. I have not seen any convincing arguments to treat pedophiles on WIkipedia different. But that doesn't mean that I have mislead people about the purpose and effects of the policy", and I would ask you to not make such over the top accusations. Fram (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)" (sic)

This is the "subject editors" list, it's prob. nowhere near complete but it's the only list I've ever seen. I can practically guarantee a few hardcore obsessives, like Tyciol and AnotherSolipsist, are still operating sock accounts today.

Editor First edit Blocking comment

Moon light shadow 14-Mar-04 not blocked

Zanthalon 19:26, 21 April 2004 21:04, 7 March 2007 Fred Bauder blocked Zanthalon (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia, please contact Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee)

Marlais AKA Dylan Thomas 15-Jul-04 06:17, 29 November 2009 John Vandenberg blocked Marlais (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Do not unblock this editor without the prior consent of ArbCom.)

Clayboy 23:38, 17 August 2004 06:04, 7 March 2007 Jimbo Wales blocked Clayboy (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (disruption, please ask arbcom or me privately about this if necessary)

Beta_M 09:02, 30 March 2004 20:32, 7 March 2012 AGK blocked Beta m (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (for the Arbitration Committee)

Hermitian 20:19, 5 April 2005 17:11, 20 September 2007 Ryulong blocked Hermitian (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Please address all questions about this block to the Arbitration Committee.)

LuxOfTKGL 19:40, 11 May 2005 15:58, 25 January 2011 CBDunkerson blocked LuxOfTKGL (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Per WP:CHILDPROTECT)

VigilancePrime 24-Sep-05 03:21, 31 July 2008 MBisanz blocked VigilancePrime (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)

Rookiee 01:51, 21 October 2005 N 09:20, 21 September 2006 David.Monniaux blocked Rookiee with an expiry time of indefinite (continues using WP as a personal home page for advocacy purposes despite numerous warnings)

Tyciol 24-Oct-05 20:38, 26 October 2009 Ryan Postlethwaite blocked Tyciol (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (edit summary removed)

Silent War 06:52, 2 January 2006 "20:43, 7 March 2007 Fred Bauder blocked Silent War (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Damage to Wikipedia's reputation, contact Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee)"

Ospinad 17-Jan-06 not blocked

BLueRibbon 22:25, 15 July 2006 "15:49, 22 April 2007 H blocked BLueRibbon (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (using Wikipedia for spreading a pro-pedophelia message. Plenty of warning, would not stop)"

TlatoSMD AKA Tlatosmd 09:13, 25 June 2006 20:06, 12 February 2008 Mangojuice blocked TlatoSMD (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (overturning unblock based on wide consensus)

Jim Burton 22:38, 10 September 2006 "23:21, 17 May 2007 Fred Bauder blocked Jim Burton (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Pattern of Pedophile advocacy)"

Roman 02-Mar-07 01:21, 7 August 2010 Tiptoety blocked Roman619 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia)

Voice of Britain 21:49, 27 April 2007 17:34, 30 May 2007 David Gerard blocked Voice of Britain (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (refer to arbcom for queries)

Bow_ty 12:54, 18 May 2007 Bow Ty 08:37, 29 May 2007 Ryulong blocked Bow Ty (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Sockpuppet)

Kinda0 00:12, 20 May 2007 10:45, 19 June 2007 Fred Bauder blocked Kinda0 account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Pedophilia activist)

Samantha Pignez 9 June 2007 23:00, 30 August 2007 Phil Sandifer blocked Samantha Pignez (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Extreme disruption. Please contact arbcom before unblocking.)

Barry Jameson 03:14, 26 June 2007 02:03, 14 February 2008 Georgewilliamherbert blocked Barry Jameson (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruption: ongoingg pedophillia related disruptive editing)

Mike_D78 05:45, 26 June 2007 18:21, 27 September 2007 WJBscribe blocked Mike D78 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (banned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV)

Dyskolos AKA Daniel Lièvre 26-Jun-07 06:46, 10 October 2007 Dominic blocked Dyskolos (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (pro-pedophilia troll on anonymous proxies - likely sockpuppet/reincarnation)17:37, 26 June 2007

Farenhorst 13:45, 29 July 2007 03:55, 31 August 2007 WJBscribe blocked Farenhorst (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of banned user [1], per checkuser evidence)

The Scarlet Letter 30-Sep-07 not blocked (Japanophile, mathematician, also used IPs 24.62.236.10 and 98.118.56.224)

GroomingVictim 04:22, 12 October 2007 02:49, 15 February 2008 El C blocked GroomingVictim (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (possible pro-paedophile activism)

Strichmann 17-Oct-07 18:37, 24 April 2008 Dominic blocked Strichmann (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (disruptive pedophilia edits)

digitalemotion 06:42, 2 November 2007 08:57, 16 February 2008 El C blocked Digital Emotion (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (possible pro-paedophile activism)

Jovin Lambton 08-Feb-08 04:00, 28 May 2008 Georgewilliamherbert blocked Jovin Lambton (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Contact Arbcom for further appeals / information)

Daniel Lièvre 16-Feb-08 03:23, 27 April 2008 East718 blocked Daniel Lièvre (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (pedophilia-related disruption)

AnotherSolipsist 15-Jan-08 03:59, 27 June 2008 Fran Rogers blocked AnotherSolipsist (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Questionable activity in pedophilia-related areas; please contact the Arbitration Committee privately if you would like to appeal or discuss this further.)

Raving Nutter 27-Jan-08 not blocked

Santi (blocked from es-wiki in 2005 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_d ... l_fantasma)

Katydidit (T-C-F-R-B) 10:21, 27 December 2006 contribs) blocked Katydidit (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (ArbComBlock). See Katydidit

[Strelnikov]

Here are the comments, and truly charming they are:

Anonymous August 22, 2018 at 11:34 PM

" Dennis, a light bulb salesman with a gambling addict wife"

You're a special kind of lowlife CrowsNest.

Replies

Anonymous August 24, 2018 at 2:34 PM

Stop gooning, nigger!


Strelnikov August 29, 2018 at 7:46 PM

Charming folks....


I had to look "gooning" up on Urban Dictionary, it's slang for extended masturbation.

[AndrewForson]

I have to say I wasn't too impressed by the side-swipe at someone's wife's problems either.

[CrowsNest]

I'll make no apologies for that. It's relevant because it informs the likely state of mind when Dennis is acting as a Wikipedia Administrator, making unilateral decisions that have the potential to affect real people's lives, careers and reputations. Is it also funny as hell? Sure. It is possible to laugh at the thought of Dennis being cleaned out by his addict wife, whose activities/troubles he apparently didn't even notice because he was too busy playing mall cop on Wikipedia, without it being inferred that you have no sympathy for people with a gambling addiction. I could have sympathy for Dennis too, if he was a sympathetic individual. He is not. He's the sort of person who is admired by the likes of Carrite. And make no mistake, the way he approached this journalist in the incident outlined in the blog, and the way he explained himself after the event, was no aberration. Indeed, if we're eager to show our sympathies to random people we don't know, extra sympathy may be owed to his wife given she may not have even ended up as a gambling addict, if it weren't for the affect of Wikipedia on her marriage. I now regret not mentioning that aspect clear in the blog. I will keep it mind for future pieces.

[AndrewForson]

I'll make no apologies for that. [...] It is possible to laugh at the thought of Dennis being cleaned out by his addict wife [...] I could have sympathy for Dennis too, if he was a sympathetic individual. [...]

Hmm. Liking likeable people, being nice to nice people or sympathetic to sympathetic people is a pretty low bar. I'm inclined to think that having sympathy for human beings with problems takes a higher priority in the scheme of things than you do, it seems. Still, it's your blog post and your opinion, and everyone else's level of sympathy for you will be informed by your position.