Wikipedia and pedophilia

How Wikipedia handles the pedophilia and pedophiles is a source of controversy.

Policy

In April 2010, when Wikipedia was already nine years old, the Wikipedians began codifying their "Child protection" policy. Previously, custom and convention dictated Wikipedia's response to pedophilia activism. As initially written, dealing with pedophiles and their apologists was left in the hands of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), but by December 2015, ArbCom was no longer involved in that role; instead, the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team assumed full responsibility for dealing with pedophiles and their apologists.

As currently written, Wikipedia possessed a zero tolerance policy against pedophiles.

However, the policy also forces all whistler-blowers to report their findings privately through Email instead of allowing findings to be shared, scrutinized, and refined publicly. The policy threatens any whistler-blower who publishes their findings in public with a ban.

Behaviors and patterns of pedophiles and apologists on Wikipedia

Pedophile-exposing website Wikisposure documented organized attempts by pedophiles and their apologists to influence Wikipedia. Wikisposure noted that pedophiles and their apologists often used pedophile-related message-boards such as Boychat to issue calls for action and/or participation, along with advice. They even advised pedophiles to use sockpuppets and "alter egos". Wikipedia critic and Wikipediocracy blogger Delicious carbuncle noted that pedophile editor "Ospinad" likely became "For An Angel" in order to work with a clean slate. Leaked Emails also show that pedophiles and their apologists organize behind the scene through private correspondence.

Incidents

Before its closure, Wikisposure exposed over thirty pedophiles involved in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia criticism blog and forum Wikipediocracy also exposed several pedophiles.

At least three Wikipedians, "Meco", "Beta_M", and WayneRay are known to have possessed and/or distributed child photography.

Response time

Since Wikipedians are forbidden from reporting cases of pedophilia publicly, there are not any public logs from which to calculate the average response time to cases reported.

In October 2011, Wikipedia critic and Wikipediocracy blogger "Delicious carbuncle" reported pedophile "Crakkerjakk" to ArbCom, yet Crakkerjakk was not blocked. Instead, Crakkerjakk deleted evidence of pedophilia from his online profiles, suggesting that ArbCom merely sent a message to Crakkerjakk. In February 2013, Delicious carbuncle submitted a blog entry to Wikipediocracy describing Crakkerjakk's online activities and the lack of response from ArbCom. Crakkerjakk would not be banned from Wikipedia until June 2013.

In late 2012, Wikipedia critic and Wikipediocracy blogger "Delicious carbuncle" voiced disappointment after ArbCom failed to adopt any measures against "For An Angel", the pedophile that Delicious carbuncle had complained about four weeks prior. Delicious carbuncle notes that even placing a message on Jimbo Wales' talk page failed to produce an adequate response.

In fact, the only person who reacted was "For An Angel", who had Wikipedia administrator Metropolitan90 delete his userpage, effectively hiding the evidence. Metropolitan90 threatened to "pursue appropriate remedies" against Delicious carbuncle, the whistler-blower, if Delicious carbuncle were to expose Metropolitan90 as an admin who failed to take action against "For An Angel".

"For An Angel" was only banned from Wikipedia after Delicious carbuncle criticized Wikipedia for not doing anything.

Erik Möller

In May 2008, Valleywag blogger Owen Thomas criticized Erik Möller's views on pedophilia. He noted that Möller once wrote, What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it's inappropriate, in an essay submitted to Kuro5hin, and he noted that Möller's website "humanist.de" once possessed an obscene photo that was later removed. Erik Möller was Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation from 2008 to 2015.

Zanthalon

In 2004, infamous pedophile Lindsay Ashford (born David Alway) joined Wikipedia as "Zanthalon". Ashford operated pro-pedophilia websites and was heavily involved in attempts to influence Wikipedia and its readers. In March 2007, Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder banned Lindsay Ashford from Wikipedia. However, Ashford was banned for activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia instead of being banned as a matter of principle. Bauder allowed pedophiles to remain as long as their activities could be covered up and did not risk damaging Wikipedia's reputation (see below).

Participants blocked for not tolerating pedophiles

In February 2006, Wikipedia contributors "Carbonite", "El C", and "Giano" advocated a zero tolerance policy against pedophiles, and Wikipedia administrator "Carnildo" banned the three of them for "hate speech" against pedophiles. Other administrators later unbanned Carbonite, El C, and Giano, and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales revoked Carnildo's administrative privileges. However, for Carbonite, the damage was done; he quit Wikipedia soon afterwards, a casualty of radical egalitarianism.

In September 2006, Carnildo's administrative privileges were restored.

2007 ArbCom cover-ups

In February 2006, Pankkake added text to his userpage that read:

I think being sexually attracted to prepubescent or adolescent children is not a crime. Child pornography not involving real children (drawings, stories...) should not be prohibited.

— Pankkake, Wikipedia

In March 2006, this text was brought up during an argument between pankkake and members of Encyclopaedia Metallum's forum.

In December 2006, "Gwaur" added an userbox onto his userbox that contained the pedophilic "Girllove logo" ("GLogo.png") and the text This user is a pedophile.

In March 2007, Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder removed evidence of Pankkake's pedophilia apologia and Gwaur's pedophilia from their userpages.

In December 2006, David Weiss Richardson joined Wikipedia as "Dfpc". Later that month, Richardson created a second account called "Davidwr". Pedophile-exposing website Wikisposure noted "d_fpc" and "davidwr" as handles that Richardson commonly used. The "fpc" in "d_fpc" possibly referred to the "Free Paed Cooperative". Richardson used the "Dfpc" account to engage in pedophile activism, while using the "Davidwr" account for activity not related to pedophilia.

In May 2007, Richardson created yet another account; this time called "LoneStarDavid". Later that month, Wikipedia admin Sean William deleted a discussion concerning "Child pornography search terms" and blocked Richardson's "Dfpc" as a "single purpose account". A different Wikipedia admin, David Gerard, deleted the "Child pornography search terms" page and blocked Richardson's "Davidwr" and "LoneStarDavid" accounts while claiming ArbCom jurisdiction over the blocks.

In June, Richardson attempted to have his "Davidwr" and "Dfpc" accounts unblocked. Two admins, Pgk and Jeffrey O. Gustafson, rejected Richardson's public unblock requests.

Later that same month, Richardson, posting as "Dfpc", indicated that he had been attempting to contact ArbCom. By July, Richardson was negotiating his eventual unbanning with Wikipedia Arbitrators Fred Bauder and FloNight through private correspondence. In July, Richardson, posting as "LoneStarDavid", indicated that he had received permission (via private correspondence) to submit draft entries to Wikipedia through his talk page. Several days later, Fred Bauder unblocked Richardson's "Davidwr" account while keeping it disassociated from the activities of the "Dfpc" account.

In December 2008, Richardson asked "Balloonman" to examine the record of his "Davidwr" in preparation of a bid to becoming a Wikipedia administrator, presumably without telling Balloonman about his "Dfpc" account. Balloonman agreed to nominate Davidwr for adminship on the condition that Richardson disclose whatever it is caused the "Davidwr" account to be blocked in May 2007.

However, Richardson was not prepared to expose his past. In February 2009, Richardson, posting as "Dfpc", published a message on the talk page of his "Dfpc" account stating that the Wikipedia administration had permitted him to return, but he did not disclose that "Dfpc" was now "Davidwr". A couple of days later, Richardson, posting as "Davidwr", attempted to gauge how much time must past before the the Wikipedians would not ask questions about a past event. In March, he abandoned his bid to become an administrator.

In January 2010, Arbitrator "Cool Hand Luke" brought up the Davidwr-Dfpc incident on the ArbCom mailing list. He noted that since Richardson's "pedo advocacy" was conducted on "an edit-segregated account" [Dfpc], the "Davidwr" accounts connection to pedophilia activism was not "apparent". In other words, Fred Bauder, FloNight, and the 2007 ArbCom had effectively covered up Davidwr's connection to pedophilia activism.

Cool Hand Luke also suggested revisiting Davidwr-Dfpc incident.

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:02:58 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc

I support siteban, but we need to work out what the rule is. We
tacitly endorsed the continued editing of Davidwr last year. He came
to our awareness when he asked permission for topic sock[puppet]s, fearful
that editing on local topics could out him. We denied this
arrangement, so he continued under his previous deal. He was unblocked
a couple of years ago when Fred [Bauder] and FloNight negotiated his return
with an unspoken topic ban. Lately, we're not allowing a topic ban
solutions at all. Given the risk of grooming, I think this makes
sense.

The only distinguishing feature of Davidwr is that his pedo advocacy
was done on an edit-segregated account [Dfpc], and the Davidwr account was
swept up by Checkuser. Therefore, there's no apparent evidence of
advocacy, but does it make sense to rely on this odd fact? We should
either revisit his account, or accept it as a historical accident.

Frank

ArbCom presumably did revisit the incident and contacted Richardson, since within 24 hours of Cool Hand Luke sending his Email to the ArbCom mailing list, Richardson, posting as "Dfpc", publicly repudiated his past stance of pedophilia on the talk page of his "Dfpc". However, the message that Richardson publish did not disclose the fact that "Dfpc" was continuing to edit Wikipedia as "Davidwr". This resulted in edit warring

In July 2011, MaliceAforethought leaked Cool Hand Luke's Email regarding the Davidwr-Dfpc incident and Emails about Fred Bauder covering up Pankkake's pedophilia apologia and Gwaur's pedophilia.

Lolicons and sexualized drawings of children

Further information: Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

In June 2007, there was an effort, perhaps coordinated on an imageboard, to replace the image used on Wikipedia's Lolicon entry with a more explicit image. Eventually, artist Kohikki drew Wikipedia animesque personification as a lolicon and uploaded it to Wikipedia and then Wikimedia Commons. This resulted in an edit war lasting several days, which was accompanied by much debate, and the the article had to be locked several times. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales intervened to deleted the Wikipe-tan lolicon images.

In April 2010, Wikipedia's other co-founder Larry Sanger, who had ceased working for Wikimedia at the time, reported the presence of lolicons and drawing depicting child abuse on Wikimedia Commons to the FBI. The Wikipedians became hostile to Sanger due to the incident. In May, Sanger criticized Wikipedia for not documenting the incident, and Wikipedia administrator Rodhullandemu responded by attempting to ban Sanger. In March 2011, the Wikipedians finally did document the incident, but they misconstrued Sanger's claims.

Beta_M and Wikimedia Commons' resistance to the banning of pedophiles

In December 1999, Russian anarchist Vladimir Mozhenkov, a.k.a. "VolodyA! V Anarhist" and "Beta_M", was arrested in Montana for using a Carroll College computer to distribute child pornography. He pleaded guilty in August 2000 and was imprisoned until October 2002. In 2003, Mozhenkov wrote of his arrest and imprisonment on an anarchist mailing list.

P.S. I've spent 2 years and nine months in prison for posession of child porn. And the fact that there was none of it on my computer when it was confiscated didn't matter; trust me when you are arrested for something like that you need a miracle not to be found guilty (unless you are a judge or a cop).

— VolodyA! V Anarhist, Spoon Collective

In 2004, Mozhenkov joined Wikipedia as "Beta_m" and created an article on Carroll College, the very college that he was attending at the time of his 1999 arrest.

In February 2005, Mozhenkov donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, writing For not deleting at least some articles as his justification, and Wikimedia CFO Daniel Mayer listed Mozhenkov's comment as one of his favorite during the 2005 Wikimedia fundraising drive.

In June 2006, Mozhenkov stated that he to the large extent support[s] childlove [pedophilia] movement.

In June 2009, Mozhenkov complained about Ukraine passing stricter child pornography laws and made a vague reference to his two years and nine months (nearly three years) in prison for possessing child pornography.

My response: And after this people will still be telling me that it is those who watch pornography who abuse somebody. You can have "limited freedom" for 3 years for looking at people fucking.

— VolodyA! V Anarhist, London Anarchist Forum

In February 2006, Mozhenkov ceased using his "Beta_m" account; however, in January 2010, Mozhenkov returned to Wikimedia as "Beta_M". Mozhenkov became active in Wikimedia Commons deletion discussions and voted to keep depictions of child pornography and lolicons. Mozhenkov voted to keep "Hotel_Karada.png" and "Simulated_Forced_Fellatio_in_Bondage_Scenario.png". Both photos were found to have originated from a child porn website and deleted.

In March 2012, Wikipedia critic "tarantino" uncovered Mozhenkov's past and shared on it on Wikipedia criticism forum The Wikipedia Review. Wikipedia and Commons administrator "Geni" then banned Mozhenkov from both Wikipedia and Commons.

However, Commons admin "Dcoetzee" unbanned Mozhenkov's account on Commons, dismissed the evidence connecting Mozhenkov to pedophilia, and promised to "admonish" Geni for "rash actions". After Geni defended his actions, Mozhenkov accused Geni of "harassment" and demanded action against Geni and the closure and censoring of discussions related to the matter. Mozhenkov also began gathering individuals he knew would be sympathetic to his cause.

This resulted in a discussion that pitted predominant members of the Commons community against members of The Wikipedia Review and its spiritual successor Wikipediocracy. The Commons community became extremely defensive and retaliatory in order to protect Mozhenkov and combat the critics from The Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy:

• Commons admins "Mattbuck" and "PierreSelim" blocked critic "Peter Damian" for "harassing" (confronting, actually) Mozhenkov.
• Commons admins "Tiptoety", "Mattbuck", and "A.Savin" blocked critic "Fred the Oyster" for "attacking" Mozhenkov.
• Commons admin "PierreSelim" dismissed the facts and concerns brought up against Mozhenkov as a "witch hunt" and demanded action against critics "Michaeldsuarez", "Delicious carbuncle", and "Tarc".
• Commons admin "Saibo" demand the blocking of critics "Mistress Selina Kyle" and "SilkTork" for "slandering" Mozhenkov.

Ultimately, the Commons community ignored the facts and was unwilling to take action against Mozhenkov; instead, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had to step in and ban Mozhenkov from Wikimedia themselves. However, the Commons community, and Germans Saibo and Niabot in particular, protested the WMF's decision to ban Mozhenkov and were reluctant to unblock the whistler-blowers who brought Mozhenkov's past to the community's attention.

Unable to accept the outcome, Saibo began disrupting Commons. In April, Saibo and Niabot sought to have critic "Tarc" banned. Saibo had to be restrained, and in January 2013, Saibo banned himself from Commons in protest.

In April 2012, Commons admins "A.Savin", "Russavia", and "Leyo" blacklisted Wikipedia criticism websites The Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy after a less than a day old discussion among German speakers without any input from native English speakers, and the Commons community was reluctant to remove the criticism websites from the spam list. The Commons community also sought to limit what its participants can say or do outside of Commons. Ultimately, the criticism websites were removed from the blacklist and the proposed restrictions on speech outside of Commons were not passed.

Meco and slow-moving bureaucracy

In February 2006, Norwegian pedophile Halvor Raknes Johansen, a.k.a "Meco", who was 42 years old at the time, joined Wikipedia. In June 2006, Norwegian pedophile Halvor Raknes Johansen, a.k.a "Meco", uploaded several nude photos of himself onto Wikimedia Commons, and in November 2006, he uploaded photos of several young boys onto Commons.

In March 2008, Meco wrote of his role in distributing child pornography and his interactions with teenage boys on a forum.

[…] I purchased a 28k8 leased line around 1995-96 to enable me to remain online 24/7. So I started to collect erotic and pornographic photos of boys, still no prepubescent. As I gradually became aware that there was a pedophiliac presence on the net, I looked this up out of curiosity and genuine interest for what this was all about. It was subsequent to this that I began accepting a few images that went below. agewise, what I had previously received. Due to the illicit nature of this trade and the high level of paranoia in the men who had a particular interest in this, I closed off a part of my then FTP site for such trade, giving out separate access to people who were particularly interested in exchanging either nude photos of prepubescent boys (aroused or not), photos showing such young boys engaged sexually with each other, or pictures of adult men having sex with these young boys, this particular genre goes by the name of "intergen" (meaning intergenerational).

[…] I believe $25 for six months access (I don't remember exactly). My gains from this approximately covered my expenses for the leased line, that's how I justified to myself taking that money. And since all the people who ever had access to the youngest pictures were already into this activity of exchanging (or trading, as the term was, it was a fully reciprocal process) them, pay was never considered. Besides, I was quite consciouss that there were ethical considerations involved, not to mention criminal, so I did not want to provide access to this material to people that were not already into this.

All my child pornographic images were hidden on my hard drive by an encryption protocol which in some respects is similar to PGP, which was called SFS- Secure File System. So, when I was arrested in November 1998 and all my computers impounded, the police were never able to find this material. The reason for my arrest was somewhat unrelated to this. It involved a burnt CD which contained heterosexual porn which some teenage boys who had been in my apartment asserted that they had received from me. That CD was an anomaly as I had never cared for naked women or girls. It had been left (forgotten maybe) by a teenage boy whom I had become acquainted with, and when some other teenage boys (a little yonger, around 14) were in my home, they discovered it and asked if they could borrow it. Not giving that matter much thought I said fine. I was convicted in the lower courts for having made illegal pornography available to minors, however, when the case was appealed, I was acquitted as it became unclear whether the CD presented in court was the same which I had had in my apartment (and which I had barely glanced at).

— Meco, ConCen.org

In March 2013, Wikipedia critic and Wikipediocracy blogger "Delicious carbuncle" submitted a blog entry to Wikipediocracy documenting Meco's pedophilia and Meco's role in hosting and distributing child pornography on a FTP server. Several days later, in April, Meco was banned from the English Wikipedia, yet the Wikimedia Commons leadership did not take any action against Meco.

On February 18, 2015, Meco uploaded an photo entitled "Child_porn_blurred.png" onto Commons, and it was not noticed and deleted until March 9th of the same year. Despite the child porn being noticed and deleted on March 9th, Meco was not immediately banned from Commons.

On March 17th, Meco contested the deletion of "Child_porn_blurred.png", and it was only at this point that an admin (Steinsplitter) finally reported Meco to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. Nevertheless, the local volunteer administrators decided to wait for the legal team to respond instead of immediately banning Meco themselves. On the next day, Meco once again contested the deletion of the photo. Commons administrator Steinsplitter indicated that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had oversighted the image, and he threatened to block Meco (but only threatened). Also, despite the WMF oversighting the photo, they did not ban Meco at the same time.

On the 20th, Meco contested the deletion for a third time and complained about Steinsplitter threatening to block him. Instead of acting decisively and following through with his threat to block Meco, Steinsplitter asked for advice from the other administrators. Finally, Commons administrator Natuur12 banned Meco.