Valleywag

Too many creeps.

Erik's removed the image already.

Let's just say this: You're not missing much. It's disgusting.

At least Sue Gardner has introduced a screening process after the Carolyn Doran incident. She may have just missed this. Can't wait to see the CNET interview: "Do you know Erik? He's a really nice guy. And he just looooves kids!"

Wow, guess we now can understand the reason for hiring Erik -- People tend to like to be around people to whom they can relate -- Erik and Jimmy are essentially two-of-a-kind. Jimbo who has been (and probably would still be considered) a pornographer and who is reported to dress his wife up in school-girl outfits for his fantasies. Then there is Erik who has no such compunction to actually use adults for his pornography ... and appears not to see anything wrong with kiddie porn.

I usually cut-up and, "Troll," here, but this is no laughing matter. This is sick. IF something is not done about this now, then Wikipedia clearly supports pedophilia.

Have any of you morons actually read the piece Owen links to? It's abundantly obvious that Moller is talking about sexual behaviour *between children* and not between adults and children. As for the link to his writings at Boylink, that same page has links to articles at Salon and other news sites as well. Are they all defenders of pedophilia too? Come on, Owen. Do you guys hate Jimmy Wales so much that you need to come up with this kind of crap?

@fedbait: So you are an apologist for a pervert. Nice going NAMBLA, Boi

[www.rachelmarsden.com]

Rachel Marsden + child rights advocate Bill O'Reilly = You're fucked

@fedbait - I simply can't believe me eyes. Have *you* actually read this?

"What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact."

So, you're saying that if a child wants to have sex with an adult, it's appropriate? And he goes on to say *most* adult/child sexual contact, as if *any* adult child sexual contact, is appropriate?

@fedbait, I contend that either a) you didn't read this b) you are a wikipedia defender and you see a story which just may sink this already troubled ship c) you work for Wikipedia or d) you don't have problems with adult/child sexual contact.

I'd say with any of these scenarios, especially d), it's you who have the problem.

Now I'm going to love to see how Gardner, Wales, Moeller, et. al. spin their way out of this one. If I were Richard Branson, Bono, Roger McNamee, Larry Lessig, I'd slowly, quietly back away from this mess.

Actually, it is my understanding that Erik does not have any problem with sexual relations between consenting "partners". Erik does not believe in the concept of "age of consent". His beliefs are that children are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. So regardless of age, children should be able to decide with whom to have sexual relations ... regardless of the other person's age. That sounds a bit like pedophilia to me ... how 'bout you Fedbait?

@Ltic: Wikipedofilia

Interestingly Erik's page keeps being deleted and redirected to the Wikipedia Foundations page. I guess he's not notable.

[en.wikipedia.org]

The attitude in Wikipedia (and sister organization Wikia) towards pedophilia is rather nuanced, at best. There is a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards "self-identified" pro-pedophilia activists who post there....and there have been several instances of anti-pedophilia activists who have gotten banned from the site simply by accusing people of being pro-pedophilia.

An interesting case study involving by Wikipedia content and Wikia is documented in the thread "Boy Scouts are for spanking" at the Wikipedia Review site : [wikipediareview.com]

A Wikia site devoted to spanking fetish art copied photos of actual underaged children and boyscouts from Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia. The images were freely licensed, but there was no indication that the children (or the parents of the children) had given permission for these images to be used in a sexual context. Furthermore, the photographer (who mistakenly thought that he was simply providing photos for the "boy scout" article and not porn) was not pleased to find his photos used in this context, although he could do nothing about it, since they were licensed for "all use".

...This is ONE case out of many...

Wow that picture sort of seals the case against him *shudder*

This is nothing new: [www.encyclopediadramatica.com]

Showing neutrality to taboos is the first step in trying to justify and liberalize them.

There are many other minority views as a Wikipedian this guy can stickup for. This guy chooses to justify something that satisfies his own sick fantasies.

@fedbait - Since it was you who accused the defenders of children's innocence of having deficient intelligence, I am anxiously awaiting your response. Please enlighten me and everyone else here how there is anything legitimately defensible here.

@Bornean: For evil to succeed, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.

@WilliamMarkFelt: Don't hold your breath.

@Troll_2.0 - I didn't think anyone discussed on Valleywag could get more evil than Jimbo Wales, but it looks like Erik Moller has him beaten.

@WilliamMarkFelt: Erik should like the Miley Cyrus photos over on Defamer.

[www.crimelibrary.com]

Mr. Moller would call the above link "hysteria." I call it protecting children from people like Mr. Moller who offer moral justifications for child sexual predation. In these links you'll read that often times children co-operate with adult sexual advances, which makes the behavior just fine, in the mind of Mr. Moller.

I say that we need protection from people like Moller, and Wales, who has thus far been conspicuously silent about all this.

Jimmy is above the law. Or so he thinks.

Its not just him, its most of the Admins as well Just look at them

@fedbait - still waiting - why again am I a moron?

@williammarkfelt (is three names really necessary?), I fail to see why I have to conclusively prove that you're a moron, since you seem more than capable of demonstrating it without my help, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Yes, Moller's piece leaves the door open for consenting adult-child sexual contact, which could be nothing more than allowing for the possibility of an 18-year-old (i.e. adult) and a 15-year-old (child) having a sexual relationship. Is that the end of society as we know it? Hardly.

Unlike @Ltic, I haven't done an exhaustive analysis of Moller's oeuvre, so I don't know whether he promotes sex between old people and actual children. If he does then that's clearly reprehensible, but no one has shown any conclusive evidence that he believes that.

@WilliamMarkFelt: One: for holding out the possibility that "fedbait" is a real person? and not some sock/meat puppet, fan boi of Jimmy's or God forbid, Erik's fan-Boi who wants to be buggered again.

@fedbait: Talking about Moller's, "Piece,"? you are sicker than I thought.

[www.mchawking.com]

@fedbait

"since you seem more than capable of demonstrating it without my help'

How exactly? And not just me, but everyone else here as well. Remember,we're talking about Wikipedia and Wikipedians here, it's all about consensus.

"Yes, Moller's piece leaves the door open for consenting adult-child sexual contact, which could be nothing more than allowing for the possibility of an 18-year-old (i.e. adult) and a 15-year-old (child) having a sexual relationship. Is that the end of society as we know it? Hardly."

You obviously haven't read this entire piece, or the Owen Thomas's other post which continues to demonstrate Moller's defense of pedophilia. And not just the 18/15 year old scenario either.

So Fedbait, please read this:

[valleywag.com]

Will you be so quick to defend Moller, and attack Owen Thomas, and the rest of the members of this discussion, when you read an article entitled "Children are Pornography?"

Oh and about the three names. You can do better than that, can't you? Then again, I should not expect so much from someone who uses the same playground insults I heard in the 3rd grade.

So fedbait, if this were a Wikipedia article, your edit would get reverted.

@fedbait: IF my only choice is between being a "moron" and a nuanced intellectual who supports pedophilia, I'll take being a moron any day.

Stick that in your neutral POV pipe and smoke it.

@Troll_2.0 - LOL - about as nuanced as a
thundering flatulence during a church service.

You know, one more thing I wonder about is this - let's just say that fedbait's hypothetical scenario of sexual contact between an 18/15 year old are true, isn't it incumbent upon Moller *to make that clear*? It's far far from clear. A 15 year old is by psychological definition not a child, but an adolescent.

I don't know troll, maybe I'm a moron for wanting such a distinction clearly spelled out - what do you think?

@WilliamMarkFelt: Nope, you are not a moron, you just want clearly defined terms and insist on the truth. When faced with such unsual concepts, our Fan Boi Friend, fedbait, must resort to name calling.

Trust me, with those sort of Obectivist ideas, you'd find that Wikipedia is a bunch of mealy mouthed CombieLibTards (Thanks, Marsden).

@fedbait (is three names really necessary?)

BTW, get your subject/verb agreement correct, which is 3rd grade type of stuff, before you go off calling people names.

Does it really matter what Erik says? We all know damn well that he (and Jimbo, and Sue) aren't above lying.

It's not like they haven't done it before.

@WilliamMarkFelt -- your lame grammatical jab doesn't even deserve a response.

As for the "Children are pornography" article, it seems obvious that you and Owen and the Troll are so busy getting your torches lit for the Moller witch-hunt that you can't be bothered to read past the headline.

Unlike you, I spent some time trying to make my way through a bad translation from German and actually understand what he was writing, and it's clear to me that the phrase "children are pornography" was Moller's characterization of the approach taken by the German officials he describes in the article -- who are talking about somehow indexing and regulating *all* photos of naked children just in case they might be used by pedophiles.

That helps support your case about as much as that ridiculous WorldNetDaily article Owen has linked to. Pathetic.

@fedbait - if you're going to accuse someone of deficient intelligence, one must use proper 3rd grade grammar.

Oh and I read the entire translation yes, and I personally find it strange that unless someone is showing pictures of say their baby getting a bath, I don't know why anyone would ever have pictures of naked children.
Experts have determined, not 20 year old kids with agendas, experts have determined that most people who view pictures of naked children do so with prurient interest.

You say this is a witch-hunt against Moller, while he accuses the German government of witch-hunting people with pictures of naked children. It seems to me that "witch-hunt" is a specious, default argument given to people who disagree with someone.

Given Erik's keen interest in pedophilia, his numerous edits on the "child sexual abuse" article, and numerous other examples enumerated here, it seems to me that Erik is kinda fixated on a topic that is one of the last things people consider shocking, immoral and reprehensible.
And you fedbait, seem bent on defending him.

It's common knowledge that amongst rapists, murderers, and thieves, the lowliest of the low on the criminal totem pole are pedophiles. Pedophiles generally have to spend their time in solitary confinement, otherwise they're killed by other convicted felons. Moral of the story? Even felons find pedophilia beneath them.

Yet many Wikipedians, many, including you, seem to think it's just fine.

Pathetic.

@calton, and @fedbait -

Thanks to the both of you, I'm afforded the opportunity to show what Wikipedia is really all about - a world where the intolerable is not only tolerated, it's condoned, and where reasoned argument that contradicts the "consensus" of teenagers and early twenty something, will meet with hostility, and maintaining erroneous information on Wikipedia articles.

This piece is pretty viral, which means it's getting emailed, then there's word of mouth. So you two, thanks for helping spread the word about the real Wikipedia.

@calton and @fedbait

At least 23,000 views and counting.
Again, thanks!

I think what fedbait was arguing about is the way most people already "convicted" Moller of being a filthy pedophile, without actually having enough evidence... Instead of presuming someone is innocent, everybody starts throwing mud at that someone, and then look for ways to justify that. Moller is probably an awful person, and quite likely pro-paedophilia. But you can't simply destroy someone's image and "convict" him to media death based on "probability".

For me, it's easier to hate the guy simply because he has a retarded face. I don't need any evidence for that :D

@exeprime

I actually agree with your point. However fedbait didn't take your tone, and came out with both barrels blazing, so I take a certain amount of pleasure in deflecting their vitriol and pouring it down their throats. For such a supposedly "peaceful" and "loving" environment, which is the image of Wikipedia, fedbait reflects what the reality is behind the hippyesque hype.