This archive page and Archive 1 were originally Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia. After the new page was created, that talk page was archived as the two first archives for the current page
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Child protection. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have been standing back and thinking about this for a while and have come to the conclusion that the practice described on the Information Page is almost certainly in line with that followed by Facebook, IMVU, YouTube, Twitter and any other site that has relatively open membership. Facebook members, for example, have to be at least 13 but younger children do pretend to be 13 just to get an account. Also, though each of those sites have "Adults Only" areas, the basic (free) membership allows access to many areas which can be misused in much the same way as areas on WP can be misused. IMVU host IM software, of course, so they have to be particularly careful. Indeed, any moderator of a standard chatroom would block a self-confessed pedophile or pedophile advocate on sight and the more exclusive unmoderated chatrooms will have viliant regulars who will report such people to the hosts. What makes us unique (AFAIK) is that we are open to anyone. The fact that we have no "Constitution", per se, (beyond "We are not X, Y and Z" and the Five Pillars) does seem to imply that we should be less authoritarian. But there are times when we probably have no choice but to be authoritarian. And the fact that we are open to anyone means that we do have to put our foot down in certain circumstances. I stated above "I'm still getting to grips with editing let alone the precise structure of the project" and the IP kindly gave me some links but I am still getting to grips with it all! I think I am more or less correct in my reading of this, however, and I feel strongly (as do others) that a completely free website open to all in which we have occasional very necessary acts of block-on-sight-question-later is better that a website not-open-to-all (proof of age required, for example) or one that requires a membership fee. None of those measures stop the determined anyway, of course, and neither does block-on-sight. However, the latter sends out a clear message and now that the practice is written down we have a further deterent up our sleeves. If this does go to RfC (the wisdom of which I still question, for multiple reasons) I have little doubt that the wider community will endorse this !Policy unequivocally --Jubilee♫clipman21:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a place to exercise free speech. No one can be imprisoned or fined here – it's just a website. It is obvious that a prominent website that anyone can edit will attract hundreds of POV pushers every day: spam, promotion, politics, wacky ideas. There are no "standard" websites that promote or even accept pedophile related activities, so Wikipedia is a glowing target for pedophile advocacy, and that shows the ArbCom position is entirely correct. Then there is the troll problem: any attempt to define acceptable behavior would lead to trolls who excitedly explore the boundaries, leading to days of misguided discussion, with absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole "other websites don't allow it" seems a rather unique justification, based on my experience with discussing issues on Wikipedia. Again I think people are perfectly satisfied grasping at straws when it comes to this issue, instead of thinking in the practical as we would normally do. It really bothers me that there are certain topics that simply cause too much discomfort to truly explore objectively. Equazcion(talk)13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not claiming that because other sites have a certain policy, we should too. My point is only that Wikipedia is an even more attractive target for pedophile advocates because they cannot get access on other "standard" websites. Therefore there will be a steady stream of advocates, and accordingly the current ArbCom procedure is entirely appropriate. I approve of the current policy, and argue that fast and decisive action is required, particularly due to the anyone can edit arrangement. I am not uncomfortable discussing the issue, but I acknowledge that it is unproductive and unethical to openly debate whether User:Example is a pedophile advocate and should be banned. Delegating responsibility to ArbCom is the worst way to handle cases like that, except for all the others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I've said what I needed to say extensively on most of this, but just to clarify one thing, I'm not opposed to banning advocates (and that doesn't just go for pedophilia). The handling of admitted pedophiles who haven't edited with any apparent POV slant, and don't cause any actual problems (other than, of course, for admitting to being pedophiles, which is being deemed a problem in itself), are my only concern here. Equazcion(talk)05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
In a follow-up to Equazcion, was it ever actually found out why the user made the template and, for the other incidences, if they were actively trying to seek help? I mean, like with the one that was off-wiki, if the person stated "I am currently a pedophile", but they were also seeking corrective therapy, I think that is an entirely separate situation. I agree with Equazcion, I have no problem with banning the advocates, since that is a POV problem and against our rules as it is, i'm just uneasy about banning admitted pedophiles for that alone and not because they have a POV problem or without knowing if they are trying to seek help. SilverserenC06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but per WP:NOTTHERAPY it does not really matter whether an editor is seeking assistance or whether they are promoting an outlook. Someone putting "I am a pedophile" on their userpage is making a declaration that, in a minuscule manner, is using Wikipedia to convey the concept that pedophilia is an acceptable outlook, entirely the same as "I am a Christian/Atheist/Republican/Democrat". That is advocacy (or, more likely, trolling). Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don't believe that you saying you are something makes you an advocate for it. Besides, have you actually read WP:NOTTHERAPY? It states, "If a user has behavior problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons", and clearly people being pedophiles has nothing to do with the causes of problems listed there. It then goes on to say, "Editors with disabilities should not be banned from Wikipedia simply because of their disabilities. Nevertheless, editors who engage in disruptive or antisocial behavior may be blocked or banned without regard for their mental health. Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed, but, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the user's participation in the project. It is never appropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that editors with mental disorders should be banned from Wikipedia because of their disabilities."
That last line is what I specifically want to talk about, because that is exactly what you just did. You used "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that pedophiles, which is classified as a psychological disorder, should be banned because they re pedophiles, because of their "disorder". Equazcion and I have just been continually stating that, if they are going to be banned, it should be for legitimate reasons of vandalism or legitimate POV pushing. That has not been shown in the slightest, especially not for the person banned for stating their pedophilia off-wiki. SilverserenC08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
My claim is that declarations like "I am a pedophile" would be using Wikipedia to promote the concept that such declarations are socially acceptable. I was using NOTTHERAPY to suggest that it would not be reasonable to counter my claim by saying that the person making the declaration was seeking help, or could not help it, or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Making a statement about yourself that isn't socially acceptable, confined to a sentence on your userpage, doesn't constitute misusing Wikipedia to advocate anything, and it would be a stretch logically to say that such a thing constitutes a promotion of the idea, even if that's what our immediate reaction might be.
You're allowed to tell people you're a pedophile in real life without getting into any "official" trouble; it's just highly controversial and people won't like you. But most things that you're allowed to say about yourself in real life, you're also allowed to say in userspace/talk space here -- regardless of it being controversial. And, so long as you don't tend towards undue focus on that controversial thing during editing, no one has any good reason to say you're using Wikipedia to promote that controversial statement. It would be a stretch, as I said. Equazcion(talk)14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please point out which part of the Facebook TOS bans self-identified pedophiles? The only similar thing I see prohibited is use of Facebook by convicted sex offenders. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would think a combination of 3.10 and 4.1 ought to do it. Or just blocking the user. After all, they don't HAVE to give you a Facebook account. This is why they have a specific statement about sex offenders - not because paedophiles who have so far escaped conviction are welcomed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it Anti-pedophile policy on wikipedia in any extent neutral?
Why article about "anti-pedophile activism" is exist and article about "pro-pedophile activism" is prohibited. It is double standard, biassed to different points of view.178.187.78.227 (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a strong anti-pedophilia lobby on Wikipedia as far as I can ascertain. I do believe it compromises the integrity of the project on related topics. Editors who display a positive opinion of pedophilia on Wikipedia are regularly forced off the project in a process which I believe Franz Kafka would recognize. Some editors rationalize this with the political need to protect Wikipedia from external attacks by anti-pedophile activists or public opinion should Wikipedia be targeted for "harboring pedophiles". I don't like this at all, but I don't see that anything can be done about it presently. At least not beyond seizing such opportunities as this to address the situation. __meco (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Pro-pedophile activism redirects to Age of consent reform which is a decent article, while Anti-pedophile activism is a pretty awful article. There is no block or prohibition on creating articles about pedophile activism, either pro or anti, as long as the sources can be found and the movements described are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Anyway, this is not what this page is about: it is about what happens to editors themselves who are either self-proclaimed pedophiles or actively encourage sexual crimes against children. These editors get blocked --Jubilee♫clipman19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, if you follow the page moves and redirects of Pro-pedophile activism through, you eventually find this old article lurking in the history of Pedophile movement. There is a huge amount of discussion about that article on Talk:Pedophile movement and in its archives. It might be that the article is simply redundant to Age of consent reform or that the movement just wasn't that notable. I would doubt that there was a conspiracy to cover up all pro-pedophile stuff. Anyway, this is a discussion for elsewhere. I merely posted this to counter Meco's assertion above --Jubilee♫clipman20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If I have read the policy on neutrality correctly, it is only valid for articles that are not user pages or Wikipedia how-tos. To ban pedophile self-identification is therefore perfectly compatible with the neutrality policy--69.121.51.151 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Only as compatible as a would-be ban on editors professing allegiance to one side of any divisive topic on which we have articles. The articles on that topic would almost invariably become lopsided, no matter how adamant the remaining faction would insist that they took all appropriate considerations to afford that the articles would present the view of the other side fairly and adequately. __meco (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If anything, Wikipedia has a pro-pedophilia bias— either subconscious or conscious, probably the latter as a result of pedophiles editing. This site is a haven for those groups whose views and/or lifestyle practices are generally frowned upon by the people; therefore, it is no surprise that they are overrepresented here, and that they so aggressively try to make visible their point of view. In any event, even if what I just said wasn't true, I don't think that pedophile identification on a user page is equal to any other identification, as this, as opposed to other viewpoints, can be potentially dangerous for minors. --69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain this policy
What does it mean to "advocate pedophilia"? Is it advocating pedophilia...
to say that pedophiles are human beings with souls?
to say that a pedophile who never once in his life harms a child can be a good person?
to say that child molesters are at least better than Nazis, and Nazis are allowed to edit Wikipedia?
This isn't a help desk. The policy is that Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy of illegal activities in the jurisdiction where the servers are located. Apply common sense and all this will be readily apparent. JehochmanTalk00:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought it would grow into that, but not so quickly. Are you saying that users who identify themselves as supporting marijuana use or drug legalization are also to be banned? Here's a few to get you started... [1]
But the odd thing is that I didn't think it was illegal for pedophiles to say that they are pedophiles. I'd have thought law enforcement would rather approve of that. But your policy prohibits it.
I understand "common sense". Unfortunately, what I understand common sense to mean is that you find it expedient to sacrifice Wikipedia's impersonal and academic point of view in the hope that someone will approve of you. But they won't, and they'll only mock you for your efforts. Wnt (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the issue is more complicated than that. This is being applied as policy right now, and apparently has been for years, unknown to most editors until the Fox News blow-up. Jimbo Wales cited it as a "zero tolerance policy toward pedophilia", but obviously this didn't help Wikipedia much when the yellow press came calling. Tagging it as policy at least implies (though may not guarantee) that the editors might be able to discuss it, define what it prohibits and what it doesn't, and change it if the consensus favors that. While it would be nice to see an actual vote, right now the question is whether the editors have the right to vote, or even have the right to know what the policy prohibits. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Now_a_policy (a forum from which I was recently uninvited and several of my comments struck) for discussion of that sort. Wnt (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Except that wikipedia article on the subject declares p. as a psychiatric disorder rather than an outright crime. Which jurisdirction punishes disorders, rather than actions? Should you also ban "advocating" tuberculosis or kleptomania? East of Borschov02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You have put a notice on CENT, but you haven't clearly flagged up what you want discussed and the arguments for doing whatever you want done. Lay it out on a plate for people coming to the discussion if you want contributions. Fences&Windows19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, given that none of the sections are an RfC, and you would have to decide whether you wanted an RfC on the zero tolerance policy (which would be shut down rapidly, as I don't think anyone is going to actually change that) or an RfC on this wording - in which case you would have to decide what you wanted the RfC to actually establish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In words of one syllable, I would guess it is as follows. Yesterday, User:WAS 4.250 changed this page to a policy page, following the statement by Jimbo here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Zero-tolerance_policy_towards_pedophilia in which he must have said at least five times that it is a policy.It may be worthy of notice that User:MZMcBride has at the same time created [[m:Pedophilia on the basis of the same statement. User:Peregrine Fisher reverted the edit, and therefore presumably disputes that it is a policy. Even if he doesn't, others in the sections above plainly do so dispute. The question then is, should we have this written policy or should the policy remain undocumented. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was tagged as a policy and reverted before I came along. Unwritten policy is one thing, but this seems to be the first policy that says you can be banned or blocked for pushing a POV. Regardless of the POV, that seems like something that should have a thorough discussion. Maybe we should have a policy on which POVs lead to autmatic banning? Is this the only one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You can be banned or blocked for pushing a point of view (of course), but it usually requires some persistence. This policy is not related to WP:NPOV, it is rather that self-identified paedophiles are not permitted to edit anywhere on Wikipedia. I didn't make this policy, and I doubt you would succeed in challenging it, but if you wish to do so, you must start an RfC on the subject.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If this is now a !vote, I would support this policy as it stands. Lest there be doubt, my earlier concern was that in one noted incident an admin had plastered "BLOCKED-PEDOPHILE" all over someone's account and, given that perfection is only for Allah, there is always the possibility that one is wrong (the admin wasn't in that case, but it could happen). I am therefore quite pleased to have something in writing that says what to do, and that emphasises the need not to stick "child molester" on the individual's talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Promoting the usage of pot is illegal in many countries, so users like Chillum, who has stated in the past that he uses pot frequently, should be banned too. --Hrotovice (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)LOL. Self-identification or advocacy as grounds for a block stood out to me, and this example is a good parallel. This page seems to go against WP:NPOV and would make poor policy. It's one thing to restrict illegal content and offenders, but it's completely different to block those who argue about the content. —Ost (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is policy. There actually isn't a debate about it. Wikipedia admins will block self-declared paedophiles and people pushing a pro-paedophile agenda in articles, and Wikipedia ArbCom will not reverse those blocks. The question is whether it is better to have this written document, or no written document, which was the case up to a month or so ago. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The only evidence I've seen is that Jimbo said it is policy; this doesn't seem like a valid basis for policy in the community. If it is policy, it is ridiculous unless any sort of advocacy or illicit self-identification is included. Though I don't want to hurt children, I don't understand the rationale for singling out this practice. —Ost (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Read a newspaper occasionally - they even have them online you know. It's *the* moral panic of our day. You cannot use MySpace, FaceBook, Bebo, LiveJournal - or any other social networking site that wants to fly above the radar - if you do anything to make someone think you are a paedophile. That's the world we live in. Wikipedia cannot be seen to be safe space for paedophiles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And we're WP:NOTCENSORED. Is this a worldwide problem or in a particular country? I doubt that it is the same moral panic everyone. Additionally, just because something is media fodder doesn't make it our problem; You can't use social networking because site rules due to the nature that they are meant for socializing. We don't have to have the same rules as social networks and it's doubtful that every site on the Internet that allows users to post comments. I'm not saying that users should be allowed to pick up underage users on wikipedia, but this is already taken care of by WP:NOTFORUM; I censoring people's opinions is not Wikipedia's concerns. —Ost (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, because it is media fodder does make it the Foundation's problem. I would prefer that they made this part of the TOS, rather than leave it in the Community area, as the debate is a potential risk to the project (you can just see Fox reporting it as "Wikipedia legitimises paedophile editors").Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that a rational project such as wikipedia could help damp moral panics somehow, rather than fan the flames.
But Wikipedia is an information site supposed to be written in a neutral encyclopedic way, not a site that is supposed to rid the society of its morality, if that's what you meant. And as I said in another comment, a distinction should be made between user pages and articles. Also, I'm not sure I agree that Wikipedia is a "rational project." I mean, I've seen tons stuff here--ranging from amateurish to one-sided to mean to plain disgusting--that makes one think, "Has Wikipedia really lived up to its policy of neutrality.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I mean that a strong policy of neutrality and impartiality can help educate people, and reduces the effect of witch hunts etc. If we abandon our neutrality whenever it is threatened, the effect is much less pronounced. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to be equal and neutral, and ban people who claim to do or promote illegal activities (which may be: selling/smoking pot, selling drugs in general, downloading torrents, downloading music without paying, running p2p servers, being communist, being pro-north korea, etc.) How about deleting all userpages which are in breach? The encyclopedia is not a soapbox or chat network anyway. Hrotovice (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! Practically everything is illegal somewhere. Think of freedom for tibet, or posessing firearms, or fireworks, or etc. As a neutral encyclopedia that does not describe or promote any illegal activity, we should close up shop, and burn all our hard drives! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Wait... you were being sarcastic... right?
Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida (if I'm not mistaken), so that state's laws and those of the US should not be broken. Also, in how many countries is pedophilia legal anyway? Probably no where--69.121.51.151 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Time for a full RfC involving the entire community?
Given the sudden flurry of activity on this talk page and at Jimbo's talkpage (and probably other places), is it now time to ask the community what tag they think this page should have? The debate cannot be about the contents of the page: it documents the facts exactly as they stand and the procedure described will not be changed by an RfC. The debate will be on whether the page should be Policy, Guideline, Essay, other. Nothing more, nothing less --Jubilee♫clipman20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any point to a debate about what tag to put on a page that documents a policy that is not going to be changed? I don't think that's what Peregrine had in mind - he's opposed to a block on sight policy for paedophiles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically, it isn't a Policy, it is a page containing information and has been such almost from its inception. Many attempts to upgrade the page to Policy have been made and all have been reverted. We few editors here have opinions but this is a Policy that affects the whole community in the long run: they perhaps need to be engaged via a full RfC. I have expressed reservations about the RfC process for this page myself though: the whole point of the page is to avoid drama, and RfC creates drama... What do others think? --Jubilee♫clipman21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I have doubts also. I think it will just turn very nasty and change nothing. I do think that WMF should make a clear statement that block on sight is part of the TOS, as this will take it out of the community field of judgement and end all arguments (this kind of thing is part of the TOS for every social networking site, even if it is sometimes couched in convoluted words). As it is, the debate would be a clear risk to the Foundation (Fox News: breaking report - Wikipedia votes to accept paedophile editors), which is why there has never been a public debate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So? I would be proud to see such a headline. If fear of the press has become the dominant consideration in how we run our project, it is a sad day indeed... TotientDragooned (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want drama, don't start a constitutional crisis by making Wikipedia's core policies irrelevant.
Suppose (hypothetically) we were to accept that the community has no say over this policy. Then I have some questions:
This seems to directly conflict with core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, among others. Is there any policy on Wikipedia that cannot be overruled by ArbCom?
Is there any policy that ArbCom cannot write on its own if it sees fit to do so?
This policy was not widely known before the Fox News coverage. The only responses I've seen to the request for more details about it are individual comments either that it isn't proper for users to know what it prohibits and statements that don't seem accurate. Do members of the community have the right to know how many such policies ArbCom has written, or what rules they need to follow to avoid being blocked?
Much of the concern being stirred up by this policy has to do with the allegations involving a "Wikipedia Campaign" made by Wikisposure.[2] They've listed a group of editors they think are pedophiles and proudly announced permanent blocks on the majority of them. Is immunity to WP:CANVAS another special ArbCom policy? Has a neutral party checked out their claims and made sure that they actually have identified all pedophiles and aren't just tarring some people who disagree with them? Do other groups have an open season to canvas off-Wiki to get people banned or make changes in policy?
It appears that there are three main options that editors may prefer (whether or not they are allowed to enact them). One is to throw this policy out by a vote. One is to meekly surrender, with or without some kind of promise that ArbCom will limit its policy-making powers. Perhaps a middle of the road compromise is to promote this to policy as proposed - but to ensure that editors have the right to clarify, change, or repeal it as they see fit. I think that (damn near) everyone agrees that we don't want to see child molesters picking out their victims from Wikipedia readers, and that it is a worthy cause to watch what they're up to. But I think we also need to recognize that targeting a small number of pedophiles who actually identify themselves to us is not a serious security measure. However Fox News might spin it, any encyclopedia that lets you get an account for the asking does accept pedophile editors and always will. And we should consider that such persons openly avowing pedophilia provide the world with a very rare perspective and a potentially useful resource. For example, the community could begin by considering whether a pedophile in treatment should be allowed to serve as an expert editor providing information about the methods of treatment. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned a can of worms above in the context of opening an RfC. I see now that I should have taken my own advice: the Wikisposure link you posted does indeed contextualise this whole debate, in particular the last section on that page. I agree with Elen of the Roads that this policy should not be open to debate and should be in the ToS or marked as Policy and fully protected. Fox News (and the BBC for that matter) would have far more to beat us around the head with than the apparent acceptance of pedophilia if an RfC rejected this Policy. The alleged history of the WikiProject that has tagged this talkpage makes interesting reading for one as do the alleged views of certain members of the Foundation. (They make interesting reading for the newspapers, I mean: the damage to Wikipedia could be enormous if those facts are skewed by the usual media hype...) --Jubilee♫clipman23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
These slanders against Moeller were well refuted months back. Do you really think that with ArbCom enforcing this policy for the past two years, that he'd still be here if the charge were true? The article cited quoted him out of context regarding some relationships between adolescents. I'm not up for a German practice today, but the other comment reminds me of what a NYU law professor said: "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic."[1] That's a comment on the politics of how photos of children are treated in a society that is hyper-paranoid about stranger rape while virtually ignoring the realities of rape by relatives and close acquaintances. Wnt (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I know. Not everyone is as well informed as the editors here, though. Thank goodness the page has been fully protected a Policy is all I can say --Jubilee♫clipman07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You're telling me you know that Wikisposure has deliberately smeared a Wikipedia employee as a "pedophile", citing an obscure news blurb claiming that he was not politically opposed to pedophilia, when in fact he wasn't even that — and despite that, you're willing to condone a policy that allows this organization to brand various other editors as pedophiles and/or pedophilia advocates and stealth canvas to get them blocked with a big notice on their page that ArbCom thinks they're pedophiles? This is like giving into McCarthyism, but Wikisposure isn't HUAC, it's just a web site whose members have gotten a little paranoid. We don't have to do this. We can have transparent and honest processes of policy making and arbitration and we don't have to live our lives in the fear that Fox News is going to smear us, because we know they will anyway. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikisposure can say what the heck they like. They aren't a reliable source. When the Guardian, the New York Times, the BBC, Fox, Le Figaro etc start believing that rubbish and spin the story in fantastical ways to sell their version of the news, that's when we start getting worried. Drama surrounding such a sensitive topic as this is only a bad thing is the long run, IMO. The truth of the matter, though, is that Moeller clearly did not advocate pedophilia in any way shape or form. He presented a philosophical argument based on his understanding of society and was misunderstood. That is completely different. No block because he didn't do anything wrong except fail to make himself clearer to a certain minority. I think we are a bit more mature about things here at Wikipedia. Clear cases are blocked on sight, less clear cares are referred to ArbCom. There will be mistakes and these can be reviewed. Any block can be reviewed precisely because it might be wrong. Indeed, we avoid mentioning that the editor has been blocked for Pedophilic activity precisely because we might be wrong and that accusation might be a defamation. I don't see how it can be any clearer, TBO --Jubilee♫clipman00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh??
Looks like I'm late to the party, but I have to say, this "policy" is truly the most bizarre proclamation to come down from the Committee in a good long while. Self-identified pedophiles are instantly, and silently, blocked? What about self-identified proponents of murder, plain old rape, racial hatred and genocide? I find it **all** exceedingly repulsive but unless I have reason to believe someone's actively seeking to commit a crime, I don't discriminate against someone for having unpopular beliefs and am mortified that doing so has become the status quo in this community. (Not to mention that unlike e.g. hate speech, self-identifying, and even advocating, pedophilia is **completely legal** in Florida and the rest of the United States.)
Here's a perfect example of why policy decisions are usually made by the considered, deliberate process of community consensus building, rather than by a small, secretive, and unaccountable panel of people in the full grip of a moral panic. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already expressed my strong opposition to this proposed policy. A pedophile is a person who experiences sexual attraction to children. Many of these people do not act on these attractions, do not pursue minors (on Wikipedia or elsewhere), and do not promote an agenda related to pedophilia in their editing. Do we really want to block (say) a biologist from editing articles on mushrooms because they happen to experience benign sexual fantasies? Like most other editors, I support:
Blocking people who use Wikipedia to pursue relationship with minors, and;
Blocking people who use Wikipedia to push a political agenda related to adult-child relationships.
I believe most people will agree with me regarding these points, and by all means I support documenting them for the people at FOX who apparently need our policy explained to them. Nothing else is necessary. I don't take seriously suggestions that pedophiles should edit Wikipedia but just not reveal that they're pedophiles - having an open community where people can describe themselves accurately on their user page is one important way we combat bias and promote communication. Dcoetzee02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But would your mushroom studier advertise that they fantasized about having sex with five year olds? I do agree that there's a hazy area as you move away from the straightforward sex criminal/child molester - who is at least easily identified from government lists - or person advocating sex with babies. The age of consent for all sexes and all sex acts is 16 in the UK. Your mushroom studier at Oxford or Cambridge could legitimately have a 16 year old girl/boyfriend, but would breach US and international law (as well as the bounds of common decency!!) if he or she circulated pictures of them having sex, and would undoubtedly encounter a lot of trouble if he/she took up a post at Harvard and brought his/her partner along.
I certainly would not want our fictitious mycophile chased around by people yelling "child molester"! However, I think the policy is sufficient in that it does recommend discretion and further investigation in other than clear-cut cases, and I would hope that Arbcom would take note that his/her relationship is perfectly legal in the country where they are.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What is a clear-cut case? Is it considered advocating pedophilia if someone in Maine suggests—perhaps even in jest—something like <Some 17-year old celebrity> would make cute babies with <Her 19-year old boyfriend>; they should get started.? Does it matter if the editor didn't realize that the celebrity was underage? Does it matter in which state the edits are made? Would it matter if the suggestion was for them to come to Maine to perform the action? I'm not claiming that such a statement would be appropriate for inclusion in article, but does such an edit require a block per this page?
What type of leeway does the policy give for clear-cut self-identification cases where the editor is editing in good faith and is a recovering pedophile who may provide the project with a unique perspective. For instance, would admitted pedophile author of The Hidden Monster: Pedophile be blocked from editing on Wikipedia? —Ost (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
RfC
So, there's been some discussion here and at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Zero-tolerance_policy_towards_pedophilia. The page has been tagged as policy and as an info page, with reverts. Please discuss it without voting right now, since I don't think most people are aware of this page, and what it may mean or not mean. After a week, let's consider a !vote on its status. See sections above for further info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC) And the FOX news report that started it all. [3]- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this page was created two months ago, and the practice has been in place since at least 2006. The Fox news story is behind the times. Risker (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I could support a ban on pedophile POV (their point of view) pushers, who advocate sex with minors, or try to minimize the damage that causes. What I have a problem with, is that we don't have a system in place to decide which of the many reprehensible POVs we would ban, and exactly how. I think we need an overarching policy on how this works before we create a specific example of it. Pedophilia is probably a good place to start, though. Also, all of Wikipedia's community needs to be involved in the process. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have full protected the policy page.
This is a policy. It's not one developed by our normal "community policy process". But it's a policy. A policy is a rule which can be expressed in a consistent manner and which will be enforced consistently. Some of our policies are things the community has come up with. Some are our pillars, some are Wikimedia Foundation rulings required to run the organization and website on an ongoing basis, such as details of copyright handling and so forth.
This was developed by a non-community based process, but it is policy. It's written down now, and was unwritten (if documented and discussed) for years before. It's what has always and consistently been done with any pedophile identified on the project. Changing the tag on it from policy to guideline or informational essay doesn't change the essential nature - what the policy describe is what is done, has been done, and will continue to be done here.
It's possible that the community could chose to try and overturn this policy and cause some sort of constitutional crisis. This was proposed before. It died. The vast majority of the people in the community support responding to identified pedophiles in this manner. You can propose it again; in the unlikely case that you get a consensus to overturn it, we can see what happens then. I will bring popcorn.
In the meantime - edit warring over it is unacceptable. The full protection is intended to end that. I recommend people find something better to discuss about it than legalistic definition arguments. Any admin can, if they find a consensus has evolved to change the label again, make that change - but it's full protected to prevent further edit warring on that point.
Discussion about the policy is fine, regarding its proper title, whether it's a good idea, whether the bulk of the community still supports it, whether it should be rephrased, whether it should be abandoned. This talk page or a dedicated RFC are fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The difference between a policy backed by consensus and a policy enforced by "what everybody does anyway" is the same as the difference between a public policy enforced by law and one enforced by lynch mobs. Blocking well-behaved self-identified pedophiles is a manifest injustice; but affects such a small number of people that a concerted effort to combat it is probably difficult to justify at the present time. Dcoetzee04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't well put at all. It was ill-thought. It makes an erroneous distinction between "consensus" and "what everybody does", and presumes the false notion that we have "laws" enacted by some sort of legislature.
Wikipedia is not a micronation. It is an ordinary collaborative volunteer effort towards the specific goal, that is embedded in the real world and the laws of that world. We no more have special legal frameworks of our own than, say, an Oxfam shop has. We are volunteer workers for a charity. We aren't running a micronation or playing a game of Nomic. And like the volunteers in a charity shop, if someone comes into the shop waving advertising placards for their products, or staging political rallies, or looking for a place to plot blowing up the government, or setting up their own hair-and-nails business, or having a party with their friends, or doing something else that is blatantly completely divorced from the project, we tell them firmly that that isn't what the charity shop's premises are there for, encourage them to help with the actual work at hand instead, and show them the door if they continue regardless.
And, like workers in charity shops, we are sometimes subject to pressures created by attention-seeking journalists looking to dredge up scandal in seemingly innocuous places, and imply connections that are tenuous at best and often outright non-existent, that force us to explicitly re-state the bleeding obvious yet again ("Erm, no. This is a project to write an encyclopaedia, and always has been."). "Paedophile worked for charity" makes for a headline, you know.
No-one ever told me of this policy, by the way. This is the first that I've heard of it. The more general "You're here for a purpose that is not even remotely related to writing an encyclopaedia, and will not mend your ways/stop trying to yank our chains." principle has always stood me in good stead, without need for codifying special cases. As, indeed, have "Don't put BLP violations into edit summaries and log entries." and "Everything written anywhere here is visible to the population of the planet.". Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to practice that isn't specifically codified - I object to practice that is obviously against consensus, yet continues unabated. We may be a charity shop, but we are one whose goals are damaged by turning away legitimate contributors who pose no actual danger to any person, just as businesses are not served well by turning away good hires on the basis of race, creed, or sex. We're not in disagreement about turning away contributors who are here to push a POV. Dcoetzee13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing here will affect the overall practice and no case will ever be discussed in public. Several long-term editors have explained above clearly why it must all remain completely private, and not subject to consensus. Any RfC would be a complete waste of energy. Bielle (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
How could you know the future? Never say never... When an obscure editor is turned off it goes unnoticed. But the hammer can also be used against "long-term editors" and make quite a stir if not here than on WR or else... East of Borschov04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I know as much, or as little, about the future as anyone else commenting here, East of Borschov. I have given my opinion about the present consideration of an RfC. Several of the previously banned editors were far from obscure and there were several "stirs" in WR and other places at the time. None of this changed anything: the policy is what it is, and the banned stayed banned (under those identities, at any rate.) Bielle (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think blocking any editors for holding a particular opinion or for having a stigmatized mental illness/sexuality is an egregious violation of WP:AGF and is counter to our mission of open editing. I don't think we need a page for this at all, much the less this unauthorized pseudo-policy created behind our backs and secretly enforced for years. The proper action taken with self-identified pedophile editors would be to watch them and do nothing else. Chances are that they are blatant trolls who would shortly be blocked anyhow. If a user comes and starts applying a fringe point of view to articles (under any subject, not just pedophilia) they should be blocked. Pedophilia isn't anything special and this "policy" as written is a large black mark against us.
Now that we have the guts to openly admit what we have done in the past, I say develop this into a historical page (perhaps host it somewhere within the ArbCom pages) which documents how we did things in the dark ages: with secret policies, ArbCom-sanctioned points of view, and a liberal sprinkle of WP:ABF. The way to move forward is to stop morally judging individual editors based on their opinions and how they identify themselves. We need to only judge editors by their output. We need not turn away any editors who can produce quality work within our content guidelines, no matter how offended we are by their private lives. Also, we at the local level are technically incapable of acting on this policy, due to an overriding Non discrimination policy at the foundation level so if this "policy" is enacted, there would be no better one to ignore. ThemFromSpace04:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You've basically shown why I oppose this without discussion. It's because you're used your admin tools to say "discussion is not allowed". I oppose stuff like that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(To "Themfromspace) No, that is not going to happen. There is a very good, Foundation level reason why this policy is as it is, and I'm very sure the Foundation will not allow the policy to be changed. SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Then the foundation should explicitly mention within their non-disrimination policy that it isn't a universal policy, and that it only applies to certain (politically correct) classes of people. Of course, that wouldn't make a it a true non-discrimination policy... ThemFromSpace04:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If the foundation has an opinion or rule or something, I'd love to hear it from them and not from another user (WP:V and all that). That would settle it totally and conclusively, so I must assume they don't have a rule if they won't mention it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
This is an exceptionally stupid policy which will satisfy no one already unsatisfied. We shouldn't be in the business of making policy decisions by fiat whenever FOX decides to run some sensationalistic crap. And I'll also note that nothing but accident limits the scope of the policy--someone mentioned pot smokers above and was laughed at, but is there some principle we can appeal to which would allow us to ban one group of people summarily but forbid the banning of another (assuming both groups were not some protected class)? And even if we can contort logic to support this policy, do we really need some ridiculous policy in order to block/ban 0.0000000001 of our userbase? Whew. Good thing we have this policy otherwise we would be helpless when some confessed child rapist registers an account and starts making userboxes. How asinine. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the policy as it has been the last few years. The recent claptrap masquerading as a breathless 'expose' by Fox News did not change anything. And for wanting a direct statement, Sue Gardner, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, said in a statement to the Fox News article.. in response to a request for comment on this story, Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, said in a statement:
"Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false." (from the original Fox News article, I'm not giving them any more hits then they already had with their yellow journalism.) As I said elsewhere. This has been the policy, it is the policy, and it will be the policy. I suggest you take it up with the WMF, if you think otherwise. SirFozzie (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Quick correction: WMF does not set En.wikipedia policy. En.wikipedia sets WMF policy (together with the other wikipedias, of course). --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)If that is the case, why does the quote say Wikipedia policy and why is this a Wikipedia policy page? —Ost (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if not outdated, the exception is "for legal issues, copyright, or server load", and Jimbo's statements do not fall within that framework at this point in time.
Even is Jimbo's statements did fall within that framework, his authority in these matters has been superceded.
Obviously, I'll wait for this particular storm to blow over, before I correct the relevant policy page.
You seem to be missing a key word, which is "particularly". I think we should probably ask Jimmy if he intended to give up the power to declare pages policy when he removed his WMF-wide rights. NW(Talk)17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Call me a cynical and jaded player of politics, but I'm not entirely sure that that would be a wise idea. Let's not give people ideas. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that this page soft-redirect to a meta page where the WMF officially promulgates the policy so that no one can repeat my mistake. Because it looks like an EN:WP policy, not a WMF policy to me. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is critical that any "!vote" is framed properly. Apparently efforts to label this page "policy" have failed in the past, because it is a three-way contest between those who believe it shouldn't be a policy at all, those who believe it should be a policy that the community controls, and those who believe it should be a policy outside of community control. When a vote is simply whether to apply a policy tag, the first and the last are lumped together. In this case I feel that the immediate issue is: Does the community have the right to modify or repeal ArbCom policy? That is the first question to ask.
Some can say the WMF should take this over — they're free to lobby the WMF, but traditionally the WMF has stayed out of setting policy on individual wikis, except where legally necessary (as WP:OFFICE/WP:OTRS). It isn't, and in fact as DeliciousCarbuncle pointed out on Jimbo's page,[4] the people blocked on Wikipedia for pedophilia continue to edit Wikimedia Commons and other projects.
Some (myself included) will question whether ArbCom should make policy to start with, but we can look into that question once we've dealt with the first.
Some will doubtless focus on whether this should be policy or not or should be changed, but it is all pointless unless we first agree that we have the power to make such decisions! Wnt (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Lest anyone mistake my intentions, I used the example of one specific editor on Jimbo's page after viewing a link (provided by Wnt) which listed editors presumed to have been blocked for pro-paedophilia advocacy. My point in posting that was both to correct Wnt's assertion that these users are "banned" and to point out that at least one of them is active on other WMF projects. I do not know why those users were blocked, but if it was for pro-paedophilia advocacy on English Wikipedia, then it boggles the mind that they would be allowed to continue to edit on other projects. This needs to be addressed at the WMF level and coordinated across all projects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course we do! Take a look at the "Scope" section of WP:AP. Where do you see anything empowering the committee to proclaim novel policies from whole cloth? In fact, items 5 and 6 explicitly give the community the power to tell the ArbCom to butt out. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What novel policy? Administrators make blocks, Arbcom is the final appeal, and it's been thus since Arbcom was brought into existence. Justified blocks for self-identifying paedophiles and for editors pressing a paedophile agenda are upheld by Arbcom. Perhaps you might want to consider the fact that Arbcom personnel have changed rather drastically over the years, and yet this particular practice has remained quite consistent over time. That indicates that the view is consistently held by people drawn from all areas of the project. Risker (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, this claim is demonstrably bunk. See this highly-relevant arbitration case, particularly principles 10.2 and 11 and the discussions for non-passing principles 10 and 10.1. So at some point since then ArbCom's view on editors who happen to be pedophiles has taken a 180-degree turn, contrary to your claim, and without any discussion or consensus from the community. What do you propose has changed in 4 years to justify this drastic and silent shift? Are children more impressionable, sex offenders more intelligent, or what? TotientDragooned (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted "So let me say it straight up: Blocks of editors who declare themselves to be paedophiles (whether on or off-wiki) or who are pressing a paedophile agenda will continue to happen, and they will continue to be done quietly. This isn't a point of debate, to be honest" as a proclamation about policy with the full force of the ArbCom behind it, but I could well have been mistaken. Are you saying that if the community decides by consensus that admins are no longer to block editors who self-identify as pedophiles, the committee would honor and enforce that decision? If so, I strike my comments about them overreaching their scope, with apologies.
As for your other point, it should have been clear after the many other high-profile controversies sparked by ArbCom (deletion of unsourced BLPs comes to mind as a recent example) that the committee is a very poor-fidelity microcosm of the community at large. The extensive debate on this page suggests that the community may not fully agree with the committee's stance that editors, who do nothing wrong beyond self-identifying themselves as a pedophile, should be blocked on sight. There's a very good way to find out. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not known for my pro-authority stance. But the key points here are advocacy and practice, and IMHO Wikimedia is correct to have an absolute zero tolerence policy there. Theoretically a paedophile could edit non-child related areas, and that thought doesn't sit comfortably with me. But if they're neither admitting, advocating nor practising it I don't see what the problem would be. In clear-cut cases of paedophilia, I'll go as far as to say that I would retire from wikipedia if the policy were ever revoked. In less clear-cut cases, this policy does the only thing it can do- instruct editors to contact the committee, via email, in private. Anything else would increase the potential for false positives, which could in turn potentially cause real life harm. WFCforLife (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we all agree that "us[ing] Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors" should be strictly prohibited. Right now, advocacy and self-identification are also "block on sight" offenses, and these are what I have trouble with.
Advocacy I consider a grey area... certainly, inciting a crime is illegal, and should be prohibited, but "advocacy" has many meanings and incitement is only one of them. Giving due weight to the concerns of the "other side," even when that side is on the wrong end of a moral panic or social taboo, is critical in any project that purports a neutral point of view.
I've already expressed my opinions in otherthreads, but this accurately and concisely capitulates my feelings. Advocacy—without inciting a crime—and self-identification are not illegal. While we don't want any editors doing WP:OR, edits from all sides of topics are important for creating a NPOV; regardless of the controversial issue, the media's perspective should not be taken as tantamount or exclusively used to shape our policy. —Ost (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason I agree with a ban on self identification is motive. Why would you self identify if not for the intention of doing one of the other two things?
I suspect that "advocacy" has been chosen over "incitement" for reasons specific to Florida and/or the United States, rather than with the intention of banning NPOV on articles in those areas. Toa Payoh ritual murders is a Featured Article, which presumably means that among other things it has been deemed neutral. But I'm pretty sure that advocating murder would lead to the same sanctions as advocating paedophilia. WFCforLife (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, advocacy is not illegal in Florida or the US in general, so I don't know what those reasons would be. Moreover, it's not our place to ascribe reasons to other people's actions. Even if I accept that there are binary reasons for self-identification, one of those reasons would be advocacy, which everyone not acceptas inherently wrong. —Ost (talk)
To elaborate on the question of advocacy for a bit: if I go to the pedophilia talk page, and raise concerns about the POV of the article, will I be blocked for pedophilia advocacy? Example: "Publication X (which may or may not be accepted as reliable or neutral in the final analysis) claims that adult-child relationships benefit the psychological health of the child in the long-term, and I think we should add a sentence about it to the article." If yes (and that's what a casual reading of this "policy" would suggest), I have serious reservations about it. If no, we should reword it to make that clear. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you present a single source, or multiple unreliable sources, or the like, as saying something that is not mainstream thinking on the subject, and insist upon its inclusion after discussion shows the view to run against consensus, then you could be blocked regardless of the subject matter. If you continually edit to present a fringe view on this particular subject, then you may well be blocked for advocacy. That is what currently appears to happen. Bielle (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Certainly WP:TE and WP:FRINGE apply here as everywhere. I'm trying to get at whether I would be treated differently for presenting a minority view on a pedophilia topic in particular. You appear to be answering "yes," and this greatly perturbs me. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you would get blocked is not something the community decides. In the event that you were reported to ARBCOM for your editing, they would decide how to proceed. You can pose the question to them, but I'm fairly certain you won't be satisfied with the answer (which will be along the lines of "we can't tell you that, sorry"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I certainly don't have a problem with that. There was previously a campaign by paedophiles to edit Wikipedia articles to be sympathetic towards paedophilia and to normalize sex between adults and children.[5] This is not an area we can afford to be tolerant in. Fences&Windows00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You cite Wikisposure as a statement of fact, but that same site says that a Wikipedia employee is a pedophile, who is still working, because the overwhelming evidence is that he is not a pedophile — and the source that they cite doesn't say he is either. Now given the level of intimidation that applies when discussing this kind of issue I don't want to go rummaging through Web sites that they say are pedophile sites (I bet the sites don't actually say that though...), so I haven't evaluated all the people they say are in the campaign or whether they've acted as part of some grand conspiracy of thirty pedophiles or so. I agree that a few of these people sound like they are, but I'm not convinced they all are, and I'm not convinced at all that they've collaborated to undermine Wikipedia. The example cited in the Fox News story (which seemed rather friendly to them) was that they influenced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard - by providing at most six "keep" votes. So to me this is looking a lot more like Joe McCarthy than a real pedophile conspiracy. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Copy edit
{{editprotected}}
George, I've tweaked the writing a bit to take some of DCoetzee's suggestions into account. Would you mind adding it to the page if there are no objections? There's no real content change, just a little more specificity and some tightening.
Current
Proposed
Pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely. As allegations concerning pedophilia are very serious and can be extremely damaging, all editors must avoid making speculative public accusations.
In clear cases, such as the self-identification of a pedophile, administrators are asked to block the user with a neutral block summary that directs the editor to contact the Arbitration Committee via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, disable talk page editing, and the editor's Wikipedia email. The blocking administrator should also notify the Committee as soon as possible.
In less clear-cut cases, such as identification through article edits or discussion comments, users should contact the Arbitration Committee privately via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. The Committee will then examine the situation and take the appropriate action.
Because of the sensitivity of this type of allegation, all editors are asked to remain civil, and make no accusatory comments of any kind.
The practice and advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia are strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles, who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, or who engage in advocacy regarding adult-child relationships will be blocked indefinitely.
Allegations concerning pedophilia can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil and avoid engaging in speculative public accusation. In clear cases, such as self-identification, administrators should block the user with a neutral block summary advising the user to contact the Arbitration Committee by e-mail at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Talk-page editing and the ability to send e-mails through the user interface should be disabled, and the blocking administrator should notify the committee as soon as possible. In less clear-cut cases, such as identification through article or talk-page edits, editors with concerns should contact the committee privately by e-mail.
"to pursue relationships with minors" should read "to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors". WP:BEANS applies here, too. Roger Daviestalk07:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it clear enough that it's an or/or in the 'self-identify as pedophiles, who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, or who engage in advocacy regarding'. The policy is to block self-identified paedophiles whether or not they have engaged in advocacy or in any illegal activity.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The following text probably needs mild tweaking from:
"the user to contact the Arbitration Committee by e-mail at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Talk-page editing and the ability to send e-mails through the user interface should be disabled, and the blocking administrator should notify the committee as soon as possible."
to (new stuff in bold for clarity here and not for emphasis in the final text):
"the user to contact the Arbitration Committee by e-mail at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.orgfor review of the block. Talk-page editing and the ability to send e-mails through the user interface should also be disabled, and the blocking administrator should notify the committee immediately by email of the block and the reasons for it."
I would reluctantly accept the proposed text, but I'd like to see persons who are blocked for "self-identifying as pedophiles," rather than a legitimate reason, to be advised that they should create a new account in which they don't advertise this paraphilia. We don't want to lose a qualified editor in an unrelated area because they were a bit too open about their personal life. Dcoetzee13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Users blocked for self-identifying as pedophiles probably have and do create new accounts in which they continue to contribute to unrelated areas and avoid self-identifying (obviously, to avoid being blocked again). Under current blocking policy, such users are technically eligible for blocks for evading their prior block. The main point I'd want codified here is that users who: 1. are blocked solely for self-identifying as a pedophile, and 2. create a new account with no link to their prior account and who do not violate this policy with their new account; should not be eligible for a block for block evasion. I don't think that's too much of a concession. Dcoetzee14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Self confessed blocked pedophile comes back and doesn't edit in that field and is a constructive contributor, should be blocked as a sock of a blocked user, no question about it.Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In what way would you describe self-identification as a paedophile on a website replete with underage editors as anything but intentionally disruptive? Why would we want to give a free pass to someone who has already behaved in a disruptive manner? We ban page-movers, edit-warriors, and other disruptive editors without batting an eyelash every day, and block their socks when identified; I fail to see how this is different. Risker (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
User is not being blocked for the act of self identification, but because we now know they are a paedophile. In what way would creating a fresh account alter this reality?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't. I'm making the claim that it's okay for pedophiles who don't act on their attraction to children in any manner, or promote adult-child relationships, to edit Wikipedia. I don't think such a person presents any danger to the community or to its underage users. Many people fantasize about performing criminal acts, including murder, rape, and assault; but because a person's actions are restricted by their sense of morality, they ordinarily do not present a danger to society, or to our project. A person who has an actual history of soliciting sex from minors is quite another matter. Other users may understandably feel uncomfortable with a person admitting to having such desires, but preventing them from starting a clean-start account is tantamount to assuming they have no sense of morality. Dcoetzee16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This perplexes me. If we could give a self-admitted pedophile a fresh account and let him edit with your restrictions, then why not let him edit from the first account with those restrictions? And what's the point of prohibiting pedophiles from editing about pedophilia, when that's exactly where they can provide information no other Wikipedian can. (Even if your local library stocks some kind of pedophile self-treatment books, are you going to check them out?) In any case, once you allow a pedophile a fresh start (as opposed to him simply starting up a fresh account on his own without telling anyone or volunteering for any special prohibitions) you've lost your "zero tolerance for pedophiles" policy. ("Zero tolerance" is American for "idiot rules"...) Wnt (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"...when that's exactly where they can provide information no other Wikipedian can." Excuse me, that's called original research, and goes against core editorial policies. I can't even imagine why one would think that would supplement reliable sources that discuss paedophilia. In fact, the project regularly topic bans, blocks or even bans editors who want to insert their own personal point of view into articles, or to expound on them on talk pages. Risker (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting WP:OR. As I said, they may simply be aware of reliable sources that few others would think to pick up. Their therapists could likely do a better job, but I assume that's a very small group of people, accustomed to being paid well for their time. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above, I would hope that the theoretical fungus expert discussed above [6] who lives in the UK and has a 16 y/o partner would (a) not be blocked if this came out - as he/she is not breaking the law where he/she is living, and (b) would be offered a WP:CLEANSTART if they wanted to separate themselves from the rumour mill. We've already seen Herostratus be quite wilfully accused of paedophilia by several editors who should know better (Herostratus is one of the few admins who will volunteer to try to keep the underage sex pov-pushers off the articles we have on the subject), and I can imagine in some cases editors might prefer the opportunity to walk away. Don't think there's a need to clutter the policy with it though, as CLEANSTART does cover 'outing' type issues.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
While I think that there should be further change, this revision does address the two biggest issues by (a) apparently showing that the policy can be changed by someone outside of ArbCom and (b) making it clear that the policy won't be used to punish those seeking its repeal. Wnt (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(side note) My protecting the page was not intended to stand in the way of the usual any-admin-may-edit-protected-pages-per-judgement-and-consensus process; Slim's request initially aimed at me should have been "any admin", and another admin actioning the request was 100% correct. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
While I still don't necessarily disagree with this "policy", I have a big problem with this "admins can do what they want, and screw the rest" attitude. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So, as has been pointed out multiple times, this is a policy that is in place and has been acted on and will be acted on again in the future.
But I agree with those who find it a "manifest injustice" that self-described pedophiles can be blocked without evidence of any illegal or even improper actions taken. Simply admitting to being sexually attracted to children is decreed reason enough to be restricted from editing Wikipedia. And no one has really given a clear reason why. I recall the userbox wars of 2006, but that's hardly an explanation. If an editor is a model editor in all respects except for admitting to an uncontrollable attraction to children, how can we countenance removing his ability to help build this encyclopedia?
But, as I noted, this policy is in place and has been acted upon and will continue to be acted upon. So what recourse, then, do those of us who disagree with its application against self-identifiers have? The bans are not transparent, so we can't take up any individual's case, nor react to any specific action. We can't change this page to indicate it's not a policy, because it is. We can barely even discuss the issue without risk of being branded pedophiles ourselves.
This will sound trite, but "don't have said it". There is absolutely no reason for anyone to post, on a public encyclopedia building project, that they are sexually attracted to children — or be readily linked to an identity that has. That disclosure is, in itself, both disruptive and harmful. — Coren(talk)04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the point trying to be made is that what you say is true of a lot of activities / dispositions. This particular one is given special significance, which is what Jehochman is trying to rationalize below. Incorporating a public rationalization for the existence of this practice (i.e., on-sight blocking) might be a good idea. Or a terrible idea. It seems like a toss-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Posting on a Wikipedia page that you want or intend to commit a serious crime involving harm against another person is disruptive, no matter what the intended act, no matter whether there are potential targets around. I can't think of a single legitimate reason to post such a thing. This particular issue has an added dimension because people are sensitive about it, we have young people editing, and perspectives differ around the world, but it nevertheless falls clearly within the disruption category in terms of the norms of the English Wikipedia. SlimVirgintalk|contribs11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, Out in the real world, we might be seeing some of the symptoms I'd associate with a witch-hunt. It's not just the dirty old men who are being targeted (arguably rightly so). For instance, teenagers also get into trouble for -well- doing what teenagers do.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The theory should be based on WP:HARASSMENT, recognizing threats of child rape as threats of violence
Rather than making this policy sui generis, I think you should consider recognizing it as an extreme case of WP:HARASSMENT. Someone who is a self-professed pedophile here, and appears to be favorably disposed toward the sexual abuse of children, is essentially threatening other editors with child rape, which is a crime of violence. Therefore, any editor who chooses to disclose pedophilia should consider carefully whether the manner of disclosure will be taken as a threat by children or their parents. Those who reveal this fact as a psychological condition, but not one to which they intend to surrender, should be permitted to edit; but those who reveal the condition in association with a series of excuses about why this doesn't really hurt the child much are creating an unacceptable climate of fear on Wikipedia.
In this way, the policy can be moderated to allow the most useful of all pedophile contributors - those who feel that they have undergone effective treatment - whose contributions are of great social importance, while forbidding those who seem to pose a greater danger. Of course, there is no guarantee that some of the people allowed won't ever cause trouble, but there sure isn't any guarantee that the people blocked aren't going to come on with new accounts and cause more trouble than that.
I should note that the original "pedophile userbox" controversy that seems to have started all this represents a case of flippant self-identification which may well be seen as threatening to other users. You are not required to accept these userboxes if you accept a policy on this basis. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Someone who self-identified with "This user is a rapist" wouldn't last long either. You're right that someone identifying as a pedophile is advocating sexual violence. Fences&Windows00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's true. There are probably a batch of things we are losing sight of here: This user is a wife-beater probably wouldn't go down to well either; nor would advocating and justifying wife-beating. I think there has to a specific Policy on pedophilia, though, because we do have a huge number of children editing here. People don't trawl the internet looking for a wife to beat (since she is probably at home...) but they do trawl looking for children to groom --Jubilee♫clipman00:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, pedophilia is not the same thing as having sexual relations with a child. That much is clear, right? PowersT01:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Technically, pedophilia refers to the sexual attraction of adults to children so indeed you are right. OTOH, if someone posted a userbox stating This adult user has recently had sex with children' or This user advocates the right of adults to have sex with children then I suspect they would also be blocked on sight... --Jubilee♫clipman02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
A substantial number of Wikipedia editors are minors. People who would illegally engage in sexual activity with minors frequently use online media to solicit. Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and all decent people want no part of such illegal activities. If somebody volunteers to work with children, such as a sports coach, they may be subject to background checks. Anybody who espouses a pro-pedophilia viewpoint would unquestionably be excluded from any such position by any reasonable organization. Things are no different here. Pro-pedophilia activities on Wikipedia violate our content policies, such as WP:SOAP, but more importantly, and unlike other types of POV pushing, they risk personal harm to our young editors. Harm to people is a much more serious issue than harm to articles. I hope this explanation makes things clear for those who did not understand why this particular issue is dealt with differently than other POV problems. JehochmanTalk03:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jenchoman. While we don't block people for merely espousing other controversial points of view such as genocide, there is no way to use Wikipedia as a tool to commit genocide. That is what makes pedophilia different. This is an issue that goes beyond the interest of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. Normally, we don't do that here but in this case it is important that a stand be taken against pedophiles. I don't give a rat's ass about Fox News, nobody with a shred of common sense takes them seriously as an unbiased news organization anymore, but it is important that child predators know they are as unwelcome here as they are anywhere else decent people with a basic concept of right and wrong are gathered. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)!
Not all pedophiles are predators. Again, the two are being conflated and I think that's problematic in many senses. PowersT14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what, I think I speak for the vast majority of human beings across the globe when I say I don't give two shits about some distinction between child predators and "normal" pedophiles. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. in my experience (yes I have ad the pleasure of having to work around and even with a few pedophiles) they are sad, lonely people who know full well that the way they feel about children is unacceptable to 99.999% of the population. That doesn't change the fact that they need to be kept away from children. This isn't something they have much control over, so it is societies task to control it for them. I know that sounds kind of ugly, but it's the truth. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It's hypocrisy that you can advocate burning an entire group of individuals—even with an emoticon—and not have to deal with the prospect of similar sanctions. Perhaps it's true that the majority of people agree with Beeble, but they may also be naive to the distinction or they have not considered the ramification of allowing a body to police individuals based on an unacted upon psychiatric disorder. —Ost (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ost, you used the term "police", which brings up a salient point that doesn't appear to have been clearly made yet on this page -- this policy, and comments made in support of it, do not and have not proposed anything more serious than revoking the privilege of editing a website. There is no right associated with editing the website of a privately owned charity. Wikipedia is not a public access forum, it is not a democracy. Banning people on Wikipedia is relatively routine because its (a) easy and (b) not exactly harsh punishment. In this case, consider it on par with barring pedophiles from the grounds of a private play area for children. Nathan T 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was going for historic irony by comparison to the medieval witch hunts, combined with a probably accurate statement on the beliefs of some majority of human beings wrt pedofilia. Surely -I thought- no one would actually believe I was serious about actually burning people :-/ .
(As my punishment, I shall write 100 times: "irony,sarcasm, and humor do not work that way on the intertubes").
Are you, or have you ever been, Kim Bruning (talk) ?16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) for line in range(100): print 'irony, sarcasm and humor do not work that way on the intertubes';
The breakdown in the proposed analogy is that Little League, say, knows and controls who their coaches are. This is a lot more like saying that pedophiles can't enter the public library. That is, if they happen to tell you they're pedophiles. It provides only a false sense of security - parents need to understand that once their kid is alone back in the stacks of government documents, bad things could happen and we can't prevent that with any policy we make.
The other thing we absolutely need to remember is that Wikipedia has a chance to prevent actual attacks on children if it provides expansive, up-to-date information on useful treatment(s) for the problem. We should not be afraid to invite these people as editors if the intent of their self-identification is not to abuse children but to help bring a lasting end to child sexual abuse. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That may have been the most ham-handed thing I've ever seen...
Did someone just protect the page then make it policy? Really? I'm not seeing anything like the consensus needed for a policy above. I suspect an RfC on the matter would pass but we have those discussions for a reason. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm I missing something or did the admin protecting the page protect to "win" a content dispute? It certainly doesn't look like the protecting admin is uninvolved and the edit summary makes it plain that he's enforcing his view "This is an alternately developed policy. Edit warring about what to name or tag it is not appropriate. Discuss on talk page and policy boards; if you find an alternate consensus then change here.". I don't think the majority on this page (thus far) believe that the "alternately developed policy" has any basis in policy itself. "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." George, could you explain how you didn't just do that? It certainly looks like you are protecting the page to further your own position in this dispute and your edit summary makes that pretty plain. Are you claiming that this alternative path to policy development lets you ignore WP:PROTECT? Hobit (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is an accurate description. GWH added semi-protection to stop edit warring over the tag. Unfortunately that did not discourage several autoconfirmed users from continuing to edit war over it. Rather than beginning to hand out blocks GWH wisely decided to up the protection to full, mentioning in the log entry that "Edit warring about what to name or tag it is not appropriate." He had to protect one version or the other didn't he? It happened to be marked "policy" at that moment. If a clear consensus emerges here that that position is not supported it can always be changed back, but the edit warring needed to stop. Now it's limited to admins only and so far everyone has had the sense not to touch the tag. If it would make everyone happier I suppose we could have no tag at all while debate is underway, but does it really make that big of a difference if it is mis-tagged for a while? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything close to the process laid out in WP:POLICY being followed. Given that, "Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy." To say it's disputed would be an understatement of an amazing degree. Rather it's not gone through the process needed for something to become policy. Oh, and by this policy can I be blocked for arguing against this policy? I think I can actually. So it's pretty darn important this _not_ be tagged as policy while we are discussing it. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The admin who protected it waited until someone reverted to the version he liked (not provable), and then protected it and said he was protecting it because it was the version he liked (provable). I now officially ask please unprotect this page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Then we can all get back to the fun business of edit-warring over it. Excellent plan! This should nicely augment the drama that is the impending RFC :/ - Alison❤07:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The next thing to do, if you really want to bump up the drama a bit, would be to bring the matter to ANI - Alison❤07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) (Oh, wait!!)
Protecing a page where editing warring was going on is not only standard procedure but absolutely the right thing to do. Of course there are often users who will be upset that the wrong version is protected and will want to argue about that instead of trying to resolve the underlying dispute that led to the edit war that caused the page to be protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Folks, did you read his edit summary? He states he's protecting the version he thinks is right using similar arguments to what he's said on this talk page (this is a policy developed by Arbcom not by normal consensus). As one of the people involved in the debate, he should not be protecting any version, and certainly not the one he has been arguing for. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That was a harmless error: protection is the correct course of action, and GWH did not revert before protecting. On to the substance of the matter: Can you present any reason why Wikipedia should allow those stating that they are, or those acting like, pedophiles to use this online resource where they will surely be in contact with minors? I think it is very obvious to all good faith editors that the answer is no way. That's what this policy says. I wish that various people would stop debating for the sake of debate. Instead, focus on the merits of the issue. JehochmanTalk13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any argument with the substance of the policy, but I'm sure it doesn't need a separate page (there must be any number of kinds of illegal activity that people might attempt to conduct on Wikipedia that would get them immediately banned). An information page, written in accessible language that ordinary people can understand and act on, would be a thousand times more useful. And as a general principle, if pages can be turned into "policy" by edit warring over it and then taking a 50% chance that a friendly or blind admin will protect the "wrong" version, then it makes a mockery of the whole idea of "policy" on Wikipedia. Admins are supposed to uphold policy, not undermine it; any who undermine it in such a blatant way as has been done here should (admit and reverse their mistake or) stop being admins.--Kotniski (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps the term pedophile should be clarified, because its article states that it is a psychiatric disorder. This policy may have more ground if it were policing sexual offenders or those advocating sexual offenses, but as it is written now, it appears to be acting upon those that think a certain way. The reason why Wikipedia should not have a policy like this is that it assumes bad faith for every editor that may be categorized a pedophile, including those that may be recovering or unwilling to act upon their feelings. Moreover, it assumes bad faith for advocating—to the extent that proposing a controversial reference could result in a ban—which is not the same enticing minors. Also, while most reasons for self-identification are likely bad by virtue of being inciteful or predatory, it's bad faith to assume motive. So while preventing disruption is a well-meaning goal, codifying this policy would punish the rare users who are proud to be reformed pedophiles—and therefore self-identifying while advocating against the practice—or individuals who out themselves thinking that they should declare their potential bias as users do for other activities. Additionally, this seems to sweep the issue under the table by inviting pedophiles to keep their secret so that other editors are unaware to be leery of them. There are plenty of other reasons to ban users acting maliciously, and it makes me uncomfortable that this policy is painted with a broad brush and a heavy hand; who will need to be banned next to save the children? I really do get that this policy is well-intentioned, but it also seems to allow ArbComm to become the zero-tolerance thought police. —Ost (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Intentions don't matter at all. If an editor is a pedophile, whether recovering or not, whether restraining themselves or not, they present a risk to our community, and they will be excluded. This is not much different from a recovering pedophile volunteering to coach a Little League team. The answer there and here would be absolutely not. JehochmanTalk14:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You mean if someone self-identifies, uses WP to form relationships, or engages in advocacy of it. Simply having been categorized as a pedophile at some point, or having desires that could be so described, would not be a reason to block. SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you're censoring people from divulging their own personal medical history or for advocating a position—as opposed to actually acting on that position; I thought that admitting a problem was the first step to recovery. This isn't coaching a team and working closely with children; it's participating in writing an encyclopedia with editors of all ages and backgrounds. It's assuming bad faith and setting up the project to have POV only for this issue. Just like going into any place in public, people need to be careful who they associate. For children, this is the parents' job. There aren't laws preventing pedophiles from walking around in public—with the exception of places designed primarily for children, such as schools—and even they only target convicted sex offenders. Wikipedia is a public place for all ages and it shouldn't have to act in loco parentis for parents that are too disengaged police their own children. Again, I get the intentions, but how many other policies can be justified when you think of the children. —Ost (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, but on the other hand there's no need for Wikipedia to be used for therapy. People can acknowledge private things about themselves without involving WP. It's hard to see how posting something like "I'm a rapist, but I'm now in therapy" would be anything but disruptive.
Having said that, I'm a bit concerned about some of the posts I'm seeing on this page, with the focus on protecting teenage editors, and someone posting that being a pedophile (whatever that means) is sufficient to attract a block, when that's not what the policy says. Let's not veer from the sublime to the ridiculous. SlimVirgintalk|contribs17:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point and I'll try to focus my arguments in the future. I also understand that my example may sound preposterous, but it was mainly meant to show a good faith move that an editor could make that would get them permanently blocked; It may be disruptive, but they may not realize it. I mainly worry that if it is going to be decreed without consensus that this particular self-identification is disruptive, then what is to stop additional policies from being enforced. I'm not opposed protecting children, but this approach feels flawed, WP:CREEPy, and unilateral, as opposed to being formed in public through consensus to affect similar topics similarly. —Ost (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If I'm remembering the situation correctly, an individual was blocked not that long ago for self-identifying on a non-WMF site as a pedophile. The "self-identification" requirement isn't limited to Wikipedia pages, then, which for our purposes eliminates most distinctions between "is a pedophile" and "identified as a pedophile." Of course, "is a pedophile" requires somewhat more evidence than "identified as a pedophile" and is not the same as "has been accused of being a pedophile." If this bears clarification, the most that might need added is "public accusations of pedophilia are not tolerated, nor are they grounds for administrative action." Nathan T 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless we block all under 18s from editing
I don't have a problem with a policy of blocking pedos and deleting pedo propaganda on sight and without warning. That has been my understanding of what our policy has been and on the only occasion I've come across stuff that was what I did. But that isn't what this policy says and it still leaves an open issue re contacting the authorities.
I think we might want to rephrase "use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors", I'd prefer "use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate relationships with minors". Currently we allow under 18s to edit, I'm pretty sure that some of the editors who I've collaborated with are under 18. Though unless I've met them at a London Meetup I rarely know for sure whether an editor is or is not a minor.
We have to use common sense. Just because you strike up a friendship with another editor (who may or may not be under-age) doesn't mean you're using WP to pursue that kind of relationship. In my view it would be better not to have a policy like this because of these discussions about wording; instead we could add a common-sense sentence to the disruption or blocking policies. But if we must have a written policy please let's keep it tight and simple. SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. but the policy as currently drafted does not restrict this to any particular kind of relationship. I would be happy to have a short section in Wikipedia:Blocking policy along the lines of "Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy re pedophiles, pedophiles mat be blocked on sight and their IP addresses are exempt from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous. With this as a redirect to that section. ϢereSpielChequers14:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Informing authorities
We get pro-pedo editors here, up to now we've just blocked and moved on. But we could be harsher. The technology exists for our checkusers to disclose to the relevant national authorities the IP addresses and edits of people we block for pro pedo editing. Should we do this, and if so to which authorities and in what circumstances?
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable making the call as to whether someone should be referred to the police and have their IP address and edits disclosed. But we could setup a checkuser function to decide on these, so as an editor you just report stuff to that team.. Yes we might need to change our Ts and Cs, but is it right to continue the current policy that like with vandals the worst that we do to pedo editors is to block their accounts? ϢereSpielChequers14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
When somebody applies to be a Little League coach, they may be rejected. That does not mean they are immediately reported to the police. I think we should not start witch hunts. JehochmanTalk15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If an organisation that had minors amongst its volunteers discovered that an adult volunteer was abusing their position, then I can imagine some circumstances where it would be appropriate to go to the authorities. I can think of one organisation that has recently got into big trouble for not doing so. That isn't to say that every incident for which we'd block someone for would merit reporting to the Police. But I do think that for some pedo related incidents we should do so, I also think that we should do so for some of the death threats and other serious harassment that we sometimes get on this site. Yes that would mean a big change to the policy of anonymous editing, and there are some governments that frankly I wouldn't want us cooperating with. But I have seen things here that I'd prefer to see referred to the Police, and I think some of our problems would go away if we were to start doing so. ϢereSpielChequers17:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors and administrators who choose to do so already report threats of violent or criminal action to the authorities. Any policy proposals to require or encourage such reports have been rejected, but common practice still allows for anyone to report to the authorities any user who claims to have committed a crime or describes plans to do so. Self-identifying as a pedophile or engaging in pedophilia advocacy are not illegal acts in most jurisdictions - reports like that wouldn't even interest the police. Nathan T 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Remove tag
{{editprotected}} Please remove the policy tag or at least mark it as disputed; there was no consensus to add it, it shouldn't be allowed to remain just because there is not now consensus to remove it; that way lies anarchy.--Kotniski (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Bogus request - The page documents a longstanding policy. Until there is a decision that this is not policy (highly unlikely), the tag should remain as accurate labeling of how things actually work. It serves nobody's interests to decieve editors into thinking that this isn't policy. JehochmanTalk15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman - no offense, but that is bogus reasoning. Policy is determined by consensus, and no matter what your feelings on the matter, you cannot assert that a consensus exists. If there was no formal discussion of elevating this article to policy, then we should immediately remove the policy tag and start a formal discussion about elevating it. --Ludwigs215:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
An RFC over one tag? LAME! Again, could we get back to discussing the actual issue and worry about the tag later? Also, the instructions for opening an RFC clearly state that there should be a neutral introductory statement, not a statement of one position or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't an RfC; perhaps you mean the one somewhere else? (though whether something is policy or not is certainly considered something that should and ought to be the subject of wide community discussion - if policy tags can be slapped on anywhere anyone feels like, they lose any meaning they may once have had).--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this hass been labeled an RFC on WP:CENT since it was posted there days ago. Having #RfC probably doesn't help either. —Ost (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you read my argument as to why that should not be the deciding factor? Do you really believe that if a group mark a page as policy and edit war over it, then it becomes policy if an admin happens to protect the page at the moment the policy tag is on top? Come on, this is utterly ridiculous. It means effectively that the "policy" tag means nothing.--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there should be. If this really is long-standing policy, then there will be clear consensus for it when an RfC is run in the proper way. But we can't just mark a page as policy because half of people claim it is. It's not just a matter of the substance, it's how it's presented, what the page should be titled, whether it needs a separate page, etc. We already have far too many different policy pages for many people's liking - we shouldn't allow new ones to be created on a whim and an edit war.--Kotniski (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Still not getting it
Some contributors to this page are still not getting the actuality. This page describes a policy that has been in existence for years. Whether you call the page a policy, instruction, guideline or smoked salmon and cream cheese, the POLICY is (a) unchanged and (b) not up for debate. Edit warring over how to tag this page is irrelevant, and the page was protected because the POLICY is not up for discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that apparently it was a secret -or at least little known- policy . Apparently we haven't been paying enough attention on the transparency front. I suggest we sort of pull together for now; but once the storm blows over, <ominous>we're going to have to go over our site procedures with a fine-toothed comb.</ominous> :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Tagging this as policy promotes transparency. We want our documentation to reflect the actual state of affairs. Now that more people know this is policy we can discuss why it is policy and whether it should remain policy. Removing the tag won't make it unpolicy; that can only happen via discussion and consensus. JehochmanTalk16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
And did adding the tag make it policy? Apparently it was done without discussion or consensus, so according to your own argument - no, it isn't policy, and removing the tag will therefore serve to remove a lie. The way people have acted here is just not the way to do things. Personally I think the whole concept of "policy" could happily be scrapped, but while we have it, we ought to do it properly.--Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@jehochman I respect you personally and would like to see you successfully defend your position. However, as a matter of logic there are two flaws in your current argument:
If a page is protected, then it cannot simultaneously reflect the actual state of affairs.
For something to be a policy of the english wikipedia community, it needs to describe activities of the english wikipedia community and have consensus within the english wikipedia community. These actions do not seem to have been carried out by members of the wikipedia community on the basis of consensus in the wikipedia community. So these actions cannot be a policy of the wikipedia community, strictly speaking.
Hmm, perhaps it is a policy of the wikimedia foundation instead?
This 'policy' does not seem to me to have gained widespread consensus so it isn't a policy. Personally I think it is wrong to single out paedophilia. The proper thing to do would be to have a general policy about potenbtial criminal activity, incitement recruitment grooming, planning, assisting or whatever, where you didn't get people too strident andf POV pushing about any particular type of crime and you could talk about the general principles and actions. Then you won't get the silly situation where a person is allowed to write that they murdered people or they thought the holocaust was both a good idea and never happened, but they would get banned for saying they liked children. I can just see Lewis Carroll getting banned if he was around now. Dmcq (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. The POLICY exists separate to this page. No amount of argument over this page is going to alter the POLICY. Self identified paedophiles will continue to be blocked on site, regardless of their activity on site. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. From WP:POLICY "Wikipedia is a self-governing project run by its community. Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community." Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia would this ridiculous discussion be taking place. It is absolutely right and correct to "single out" pedophilia. Why you ask? Here's why: A user could advocate for many other illegal or immoral activities over Wikipedia, such as theft, genocide, etc. They can't actually do any of these things on Wikipedia, just talk about them. There is no way that Wikipedia could be used to enable a genocide. It's fairly easy to see how it could be used to enable a pedophile. People, I know Wikipedia as an organization normally does not "take a stand" on issues not related to building and maintaining an encyclopedia, and in almost all cases it shouldn't. This is the exception. Pedophiles are real, and they really do come here looking for children to "interact" with. That cannot be tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You could groom and recruit people to bomb a federal building on wikipedia. You can ask for assistance in preparing anthrax for spreading in trains, theres all sorts of things one can do, I see no need to engage excessively in WP:BEANS but yes it could be used quite easily to assist in genocide. The policy should deal with the general problem and avoid having people who scream burn them all which just leads to bad decisions. There is no need for rabidity and foaming at the mouth. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I have been acting like a mad dog. I'm pretty sure I've just been trying to explain why we should not tolerate pedophiles. If there was an actual problem with terrorist recruiting on Wikipedia, I'm sure we would put a stop to that too, but there isn't. I don't think we should "burn them all" but you have to realize that generally pedophilia is incurable and the recidivism rate is very, very, high. Like the rest of the civilized world, Wikipedia should not tolerate allowing pedohiles access to children in any way, shape, or form. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you will look in the history you weill see a recent 'Burn them all' by another contributor. This may be just a declaration of POV butI hope you realize this sort of attitude and the disrespect for the community shown by anbswers here is deeply worrying to somebody who believes in consensus and neutral point of view and avoiding hidden actions which are badly thought out. It is very disrespectful of the community to say we are better than you at deciding how the encyclopaedia should be developed. This and another recent action makes the place seem much more like Conservapaedia to me. If you wish to deal with this sort of thing do it with the community not by going up the noses of editors with we know best and your thoughts don't matter. Or as I say in the next section do it from the Foundation and then we can blame them for any silliness. I dislike the plain falsehood of the current policy tag saying it is a consensus decision. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The ease with which this policy could be extended is exactly why it (and its method of "passage") is of such concern. History tells us that the sometimes well-grounded fear of the bogeyman has been the tip of the wedge for expansive bans on unrelated activities. For example, ecently the Northern Territory National Emergency Response came up in a discussion on Commons - in response to a report about rampant sexual abuse on aboriginal lands, the Australians ignored 95/97 of the report's conclusions, including opposition to heavy-handed centralized action, putting up signs proclaiming a ban on pornography throughout the area ... and hired one full time employee to deal with child sexual abuse. I think it is commonplace that those demanding rash action regarding pedophilia really have no concern for the children at all; to them, every child who is abused is a convenient political asset. In the case of Wikipedia, what we would be looking at is where community input, discussion and consensus building would eventually be replaced by paid political careerists winning partisan elections to sit on small committees that would make a business of purging content and editors they dislike. We can fight this now when only a handful of pedophiles are the casualties, or we can fight it later when larger classes of people are expelled and the very existence of Wikipedia is threatened. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried too by McCarthy type creep of rules relying on knee jerk reactions. I am not against the idea of a policy that could be used to deal with potential crime which would say things like the sensitive handling of data and how to report things, but it should be dealt with as a general issue rather than as paedophilia. Our other policies are mainly based on general principles and they're the better for it. Do people here really believe that someone saying they are paedophiles helps them groom children? We should treat them the same as any other self confessed criminal however that should be. Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You guys are trying to solve problems that don't exist yet. I'll say it again: this isn't a normal type of stance for Wikipedia to take as it does not directly relate to building and maintaining an encyclopedia. Normally Wikipedia as a whole should not have an opinion on such matters. This is the exception to that. Going of the deep end with hyperbole and claims of McCarthyism is not going to strengthen your argument to the contrary. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly where do you get this 'you guys' from and who exactly needs to be convinced if not the rest of 'you guys'? If this is official Foundation policy then it should be marked as such. Otherwise you are one of 'you guys'. Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that paedophiles are an overwhelming part of any threat like this to Wikipedia? I get the feeling that there are people looking out for things like 'I like small girls' and banning editors who go away and never want anything to do with Wikipeda again. If we look at the number who say much more explicit things like there was no holocaust all jews should die or the Federal government is wicked you should bear arms to defend ourself against it or abortion is a sin they should burn in hell or nuke the Taliban that'll make them fear us or the end of the world is nigh, we should assist its coming or mercury fulminate is dangerous you should use xyz as a detonator or if he comes into the house you can shoot him. Don't any of those sorts of things twig a little bit of worry for you? If you are looking for one particular thing you may well be missing out of lots of other worrying things and your statistics will be self confirming.
This is why I am saying the policy should deal with the general problem. And once that is done there will be a single policy that people can read debate and come to some consensus about rather than starting with this topic which I think has been pushed by people with a strong bias towards seeing a particular type of crime and ignoring others. Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why there should be no policy-tag on this policy
The practice of banning self-admitted (on-wiki or elsewhere) pedophiles on sight while simultaneously forbidding any kind of public debate about such blocks ("please contact arbcom privately") has been around for years. It will continue for years, as long as those with enough influence (you know who you are) decide as much. As such, what this page proclaims to be does not matter one bit. With or without a policy tag, nothing at all would change. So I guess I simply shouldn't care, but in the end we give the community the illusion that they have any say in the matter as long as we have the policy-tag on this page. They don't, though. We only encourage the people to edit the policy to make it reflect their views one way or another, we encourage endless edit wars, endless discussions about whether an 18 year old Scot would be allowed to get a 16 year old American girlfriend on Wikipedia, etc. We could eliminate all this by simply replacing the policy tag with one that reads "This is how it's done, and you have no say in the matter. End of story." Alas, that wouldn't be the "wiki-way", so we can't have that, can we? --Conti|✉15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If it is an Wikimedia official policy then that should be documented as such in the hatnote. If it isn't a handed down policy then it is subject to consensus. Which is it? Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well, you've just essentially described most of the elements of a wiki-policy. Except for the bit about not being able to do anything about it. There are definitely measures that can be taken. At the end of the day, we're in charge, no one else.
There are 2 different narratives here: On one side, we're talking about the pedophilia measures as currently in place, on the other side, I think this event has exposed certain transparency issues within the foundation and within the english wikipedia . We need to deal with these issues promptly and firmly; but we need be sure to divorce them from the pedophilia issue.
I agree that that discussion is needed, so if you do start it somewhere please give me a shout. Anyone trying to have it here is going to be tainted with the sense that they're defending paedophiles, which is the problem with moral panics, complicated by the fact that this one's not entirely baseless. SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I've had that worried feeling on a couple of other things too but thankfully noone seems to have taken up personally against me for them yet. Yes I much prefer things to be transparent as far as policy is concerned, it might mandate that some things need secrecy but the sorts of things covered by that and the rules dealing with it should be fairly clear. SO yes please I'd like anything like this announced on something like the village pump proposals Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Cooperation with law enforcement agencies
Our policy should also make clear the fact that Wikipedia will comply with court orders obtained by law enforcement agencies seeking information regarding the identities and locations of editors who claim to be aiding, abetting, or engaging in illegal activities. bd2412T16:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the level of compliance should also be discussed, should it be active support and to what level or passive compliance waiting for a court order for instance? Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
For agencies like the FBI, court orders on things like this are as easy to get as picking up a phone. However, if someone from the FBI were to contact Wikipedia directly and ask for check-user type information regarding the identity and location of an editor who claimed to be engaging in an illegal activity, I can see no reason why we would not cooperate fully and immediately. Of course, if an editor were to make such claims on a publicly accessible discussion page, anybody in the world could read it, pick up he phone, and call the police and report that such claims are being made. bd2412T16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Providing information without some sort of legal warrant sounds pretty close to violating the rights of EU citizens. I'm not sure it's legal in the USA either. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is a private company, not a government agency. Users have no expectation of privacy beyond what is set forth in our policies, so if our policies say that we will cooperate with law enforcement agency requests, that sets the boundaries of Wikipedia's contractual obligations. Of course, there is no law at all imposing criminal liability on the Wikimedia Foundation, or anyone working for it, for making such disclosures. In the United States, in fact, the First Amendment protects our right to do so, as a participant in the free press. bd2412T17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:
In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement,
With permission of the affected user,
When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues,
Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Number six should cover just about any release of information pertaining to this particular policy. bd2412T17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If it's already covered, there's no need to add it here. And if it's not already covered, we shouldn't be trying to create new Foundation policies. SlimVirgintalk|contribs17:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
We need to be making it crystal clear, in case someone should have the misguided idea that Wikipedia is a safe haven for planning illegal activities. There is no requirement, so far as I know, that a policy covered in one place can not be restated in another place where it is relevant to state it. If it is not repeated here, it should at least be linked on the policy page. bd2412T18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the right location to discuss whether such an admonition (or a link to the appropriate policy page) should be included included on this page. bd2412T19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Paedophile advocacy is not illegal in the applicable jurisdictions; it is, just like any other kind of advocacy on this project, disruptive and distorting to the project itself. This is not about identifying people breaking the law; it's primarily about people who attempt to use this project to further an external agenda. In that sense, paedophile advocacy is no different than any other kind of advocacy. We block and ban people for pushing agendas on a regular basis. Risker (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm broadly supportive of that policy, but I think we need to bring some local wiki policies into line with it. I also think we need to clarify what would be considered a valid request from Law enforcement. For example if the Australian Police wanted to prosecute a Brit for Emails sent to an Australian kid, would they need to get the FBI to make the compulsory request? Or would Wikimedia cooperate with UK Police? I also think we need a clearer route for users to escalate incidents that should be reported to the Police. ϢereSpielChequers18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's something that would be addressed at the WMF level and is outside of the scope of our individual project, if it is based on information covered in the privacy policy. Checkusers already know to be in contact with the WMF if they receive a personal request from law enforcement. Any receiving administrator or editor can respond as they personally see appropriate to requests based on publicly available information (including external sites, contribution histories, and individual edits/diffs). There is no mandatory obligation to report anything to the police; however, there is also nothing preventing people from reporting something they see in publicly available information. Risker (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Before all this flared up, I suggested at the talk page for WP:No legal threats that we should make it absolutely clear that no blocks or other punitive or retaliatory action should be taken against editors (e.g. Larry Sanger) who contact police or serve as witnesses in an investigation (even if they talk about this on-wiki). I feel that that policy does not actually allow for any such action anyway, but the response I had from some people on the talk page was as if it did. I think it is important for Wikipedia to make sure that it doesn't go the way of the Catholic Church here. The policy against legal threats is only intended to forestall lawsuits that are at the discretion of the editor; it's not Stop Snitchin' in any way shape or form. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
conflation
At the moment, the most serious problem with this policy as worded is that it seems to conflate four related topics:
pedophilia (or paedophilia), a sexual paraphilia involving uncontrollable sexual attraction to pre-adolescents
child molestation or child sexual abuse, in which a person, possibly but not necessarily a pedophile, has sexual contact with pre-adolescents
ephebophilia, a sexual preference for adolescents, which I believe is not considered a paraphilia at all, but is often lumped together with pedophilia under the latter term
having sexual contact with adolescents, which is illegal in many jurisdictions, depending on age
The policy, and these discussions, would benefit from clarification regarding exactly which of these is being addressed.
Yesterday I'd have said no, let's not get into these details, but having seen some of the posts above—and having just discovered that the age of consent in Florida is 18 if the partner is over 23—I'm now inclined to agree. (Or does some other jurisdiction in the States count now that the office has moved?) SlimVirgintalk|contribs18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of blocking self-identifying paedophiles and those who push a paedophile advocacy agenda is that they are disrupting and distorting the project. Everything in this section is irrelevant. Risker (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So this is not about "protecting the children" after all? Glad that one got clarified. --Conti|✉18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am indeed. It's confusing when one half says "This policy is needed because of the children" and the other half says "That's got nothing to do with it, these people are simply disrupting the encyclopedia". So what is it? --Conti|✉19:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If that is the purpose of this policy, why isn't it a general policy on being disruptive or pushing a POV? Why is it singling out a particular group of people, which does not appear to be well-defined in the context of this page. —Ost (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Heck, Arbcom didn't write this policy, and the edits to it from Arbcom members are mainly to add email addresses and links and the like. The only real advantage of having this in writing is to remind administrators to contact Arbcom if they make a block related to paedophilia advocacy or self-disclosure, and to be discreet when making such blocks; because of the nature of the block reason, it will invariably involve personal or private information, and those block reviews always come to Arbcom. However, that is expected for any block involving personal or private information. Risker (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom (or some of its members) came up with the policy that has later been written down. Can we agree on that? It was an arbcom member who first started to block self-identified pedophiles, and that's where this policy originated from. It was never the result of an actual community discussion. No comment on whether that's a good thing or not, just trying to get the facts straight. --Conti|✉20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It may be helpful to designate a minor as a young person considered under the age of consent in the editor's current location (if this is known for certain) AND in the state of Florida, to allow for countries with lower ages of consent. If nothing is known for certain about the individual's location, the Florida legislation has it. In some cases, the individual may be engaged in or advocating activity which breaches international law - eg transmitting images across national boundaries - in which case a minor is defined as under 18.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's where it gets odd, Elen. Do we want a situation where a 24-year-old might be blocked for discussing his 16-year-old girlfriend—the age of consent in Florida is apparently 18 if you're over 23. I don't know if you're familiar with John Peel, a much-loved English DJ who died a few years ago. He was quite open about his sexual exploits with 14-year-olds when he was 26 and living in Texas. [8] His first wife was 15. Apparently he'd now be a pedophile.
It's a problem. Paedophilia is specifically about pre-pubescents - recent UK cases have involved the rape of a 10 year old, circulating images of 5 year olds, and offences against children at a nursery. I do think that if we can find a way to focus on that, rather than a year here and there in an age of consent discussion, then we are on much more comfortable ground. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we ought to remove the word "minors," because that's a legal concept, and talk about children instead. So the sentence that now reads (with the word I'm changing in bold):
Editors who self-identify as pedophiles, who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, or who engage in advocacy regarding adult-child relationships will be blocked indefinitely"
would read instead:
Editors who self-identify as pedophiles, who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with children, or who engage in advocacy regarding adult-child relationships will be blocked indefinitely.
I'd hope it would lead to less. As it stands the policy uses a legal term without saying which jurisdiction defines it. If we assume Florida, then it's 18 where the partner is over 23; otherwise 16. I believe that would strike a lot of people around the world as a somewhat illiberal piece of legislation, and this is an international, multi-cultural project. Yet we can't randomly choose some other jurisdiction to be governed by.
(to SV) Is it, though? That's kinda been my question -- when someone from the ArbCom says "we block pedophiles on sight", are they using the medical definition (the paraphilia involving pre-pubescents) or the colloquial widely-used definition (molestation of minors, whether pre-pubescent or not)? PowersT23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of morbid curiosity, what about a 14 and 16 year old having sexual relations. If we find that is happening, do we block one, both or neither? What if both are 14? I don't really care about the answers per se as much as to know if we've got a plan for these cases and bright lines. Will we be using Florida's definition of age of consent? That would mean that a 23 year old could be having sexual relations with a 16 year old and it would be legal (for a 24 year old the age moves to 18 which is a bit wacky but welcome to the South). I can't figure out Florida laws for two 15 year-olds. I think that we should have fairly bright lines (I'm a bright-line kind of a guy) just so people know what we are doing. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
@postdif, sorry not actually. We are creating "block on sight" rules. Such rules need to be well defined. Say two users, one self-identified as 14, indicate they are in a sexually active relationship (say on IRC, but maybe via a talk page or userbox). Do we block the other one on sight? What if that other user is 15? 16? 17? 18? 20? "I know it when I see it" rules are all well and good for things that involve discussion and the light of day. Things that happen automatically without discussion need brighter lines. So no, it's a real question. At a random guess, no one has an answer. If we'd actually gone through the normal policy creation process I'll bet we would. (As I wrote this I found a reference to the fact that Florida has a "Romeo and Juliet" clause. (http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/Romeo_and_Julie.htm). It too apparently doesn't have a bright line, but it does provide guidelines. Should we just state we follow Florida law (and ideally link to it?) Hobit (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd hope the answer is absolute not, that we are not going to persecute teenagers for admitting to being sexually active. The only valid and meaningful reason for having a pedophilia policy is to ban predators of children. That policy is better served by using the term "children" than "minor" for the reasons discussed above. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree here. Someone campaigning to get the Florida age of consent set to 16 in all cases (as it is in the UK) is not a paedophile. Someone who thinks that five year olds can consent to sex acts is a paedophile. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What about 15-year-olds? 14-year-olds? And if the "only ... reason for having a pedophilia policy is to ban predators", why does this policy apparently also cover non-predators? PowersT15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone who thinks that 5-year-olds can consent to sex acts is a crank thinker, but may or may not be a pedophile. Someone who wants to perform sex acts with a 5-year-old is a pedophile, regardless of whether they think that the 5-year-old can consent (or indeed whether they make any attempt to perform such acts).--Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
An experiment
Delete the page Pedophilia and the rest of the topics strongly connected to it and protect all of them from creation. That should keep the pov pushers and those with bad intentions away! --Hrotovice (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The number of articles that would be involved may be more than you would think. See, using an obvious term as an example, the search results for "pederasty". Some more cynical than I might suggest that the widespread inclusion of paedophilia-related sbjects is a symptom of the efforts to "normalize" paedophilia, but I don't think that the intention of this policy is to prevent editors from writing about paedophilia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If it's a valid encyclopedia topic and nobody can edit it without being accused (or suspected to be involved or whatever else) with illegal things, what can be done to ensure a basic, continued, neutral quality for the page? Because you know, they say "it takes one to know one", but Joe Random doesn't know, and then he can't splice up a decent page, and... --Hrotovice (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you people want to try the experiment? I read around here that some administrators deleted biographies which were unsourced, against the will of the community, so why not try this too? As for normalizing, there would be nothing to normalize after the deletion. --Hrotovice (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually laughing on the outside but crying on the inside. His proposal is just as reasonable as what's going on here, and equally in line with policy. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Something along the lines of that: Perhaps we could -as a community- have a process by which we decide to temporarily put a moratorium on pages which -at this time- produce more heat than light, and instead work on more productive endeavours. We can review those moratoriums once a year.
Arguably, it might be better to admit that our best efforts at NPOV have failed for now, rather than claim "this is our best effort at NPOV". I'm still thinking about the pro's and con's of this. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone point to where WP:PROPOSAL was followed?
I just want to be clear, we've got a page marked as policy, that hasn't followed the policy for doing so. We've got an involved admin protecting his preferred version which is against policy. Does anyone disagree with either of those statements? If so, could you explain why? If you agree with both but still think this is a good idea, could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We have a mechanism for policy development outside the community WP:PROPOSAL mechanism. Some comes from the Foundation, some came from Jimbo, etc. This policy was imposed by consensus of the Foundation, Jimbo, Arbcom, etc.
The normal on-wiki policy mechanisms don't directly address the external policy mechanism; nor do they override or exclude it. There are two parallel mechanisms.
The on-wiki community can develop an alternate consensus if they disagree with the external policy. But unless one develops, the validity of the externally developed policy remains as such.
This appears to be surprising some people, but has been established as an alternate process for some time (as long as I've used Wikipedia, at least into 2005). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, where did Jimbo or the board state this was policy? Honest question, I've not seen an official note from anyone saying it was policy but there is so much so many places I easily could have missed it. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
When these procedures first evolved - at least four (and maybe five) years ago, and more or less unchanged since - policy was simply a codification of "current convention and common practice". Community ratification of proposed policy via RFCs came much later. There is also longstanding consensus that actions in defence of the encyclopedia do not themselves require specific community consensus. I think the point is that these precedures are therefore de facto policy. It is also abundantly clear that there is widespread consensus in support of them even though there is disagreement over some of the detail. Roger Daviestalk03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Roger, your answer and George's seem to be at odds. Are you saying there exists a community-based consensus that for what ever reason can and should by pass our policies on policy creation or is it the case that this policy is coming in through a separate door via Jimbo and/or the board? If the first, I'd like to hear why we shouldn't follow our normal policy creation scheme (if for no other reason than to hammer out the details). If the second, I'd just like to see where they told us this needs to be policy. I don't believe either request is unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
time for ArbCom?
It might be time to pose this question to ArbCom and ask for a quick ruling. My worry here is that if this purely authoritative imposition of policy succeeds, it will start to spread, with sysops wheel-warring new text into existence as they feel like it and locking pages to de facto create new policy. Don't get me wrong - I assume that over the course of time this silliness will be reversed, and then we can have a reasonable discussion about the issue, but I feel it is important that a few people get their hands burned over this to prevent it from happening in the future.
I've decided that this oh-so-typical behavior needs a new term all its own, so I'm coining one. welcome to the first official example of what I will hereafter call Wikipidiocy. --Ludwigs206:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this action has rendered the whole idea of policy meaningless. But don't count on ArbCom being any help - last time a group of zealots decided that they knew better than the community at large, and started mass-deleting pages without approval (saying - quite literally - "sod the community"), ArbCom gave them a pat on the back. (I note that some of the same names from that incident are reappearing this time.) If we want to change things, we must stop electing people to ArbCom who believe that they and their friends have the right to impose policy by fiat. --Kotniski (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I know, but one interesting, counter-intuitive, but useful fact I've discovered about wikipedia is that the worst class of zealots is actually very dependent on maintaining their public image. For some unknown reason they need to present themselves as encyclopedic knights in shining armor. That makes them vulnerable to reason (and I do mean 'vulnerable' to reason, because their normal approach is to try to be immune to reason at all costs). Large doses of public embarrassment on appropriate grounds - for incivility, failures of logic and common sense, tendentiousness or POV-pushing (whatever they happen to be guilty of, because they are always guilty of something like this) - will usually suffice to make them back down and communicate sensibly, though they will hate you for it.
Making this article policy in this fashion is moronic behavior - purely, simply, completely, and irrevocably moronic. They know it as well as you and I do, and they simply need to be told repeatedly and forcefully that it is so, and possibly get themselves sanctioned (even de-sysopped) for it, because nothing other than that will elicit reasonable adult behavior from them. Sad fact, but dealing with policy issues on Wikipedia is like what it must feel like to work in a daycare on a day when half the staff calls in sick - doling out juice boxes ain't gonna cut it. --Ludwigs208:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't think wheel-warring and abuse of sysop powers to institute policy is something ArbCom might comment on? why don't we ask ArbCom what they think about it? or wait - is this one of those things where you just assert what Arbcom will say, the way you've been asserting that this is policy. --Ludwigs214:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I have never seen the reason for this page. The blocks related to self-identification of paedophiles and for paedophilia advocacy are covered under existing blocking policy. The moral panic that is happening on this page (on all sides - there is little to differentiate the "OMG paedophiles won't be allowed to edit!" the "OMG we haven't quashed all the paedophiles!" and the "OMG it isn't explicitly covered under Rule 32.6 sub(b)(ii) line 26!" posts) is a lot more concerning than whether or not a very tiny number of blocks over the span of 5-6 years have been carried out. So far, nobody has come up with a reason soundly rooted in the five pillars why they should not continue to be carried out exactly as they have been for many years. Risker (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
In other words, you don't care whether or not people who have never and would never lay a hand on a child, but admit to suffering from an irresistible attraction to them, can edit Wikipedia to provide resources and information related to their condition? PowersT15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point about the arguments here being completely disconnected from our core policies. Wikipedia is not therapy, nor is it a platform for advocating certain treatments or resources. And this community is certainly in no position to differentiate whether or not a specific paedophile is likely to cause harm or not. Risker (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Nor whether a specific Muslim or Millwall supporter is, for that matter. Anyway, what part of the difference between "provide" and "advocate" do you not understand?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
But even a person not looking for therapy nor advocating a specific response could be blocked under this policy. PowersT15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Blue pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.... Wikipedia is not a soapbox..." Blocking self-identified pedophiles and pedophilia advocates has nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia. Certainly, POV-pushers of all kinds are disruptive, but singling out pedophilia advocates who haven't and don't intend to break the law as needing special harsh treatment is using Wikipedia to push a social agenda. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the spreading of moral panics.
Green pillar: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view." Banning editors who advocate pedophilia -- even those who do so non-disruptively, and who do not practice pedophilia themselves -- endorses an "official POV" on this subject in flagrant violation of our pillar on neutrality. Let the sources speak for themselves.
Yellow pillar: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit" unless that editor, despite not breaking or intending to break any laws, and without intentionally being disruptive, is found to have a mental disease some admins find personally repugnant.
Orange pillar: "...Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree... Find consensus, avoid edit wars..." Blocking editors who disagree with you in a content dispute used to be a non-starter around here. Why is there an exception for when the topic is pedophilia? Not to mention that the entire process by which this "policy" was enacted violates the fourth pillar: Enacting a policy in secret and then later proclaiming "this is how it has always been, will always be, and anyone who disagrees can sod off" when there's obviously no clear consensus in your favor isn't how we do things around here.
Red pillar: "...Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes." Unless you're editing an article about pedophilia, in which case you had just better hope a secret tribunal doesn't decide your edits are "advocacy" and blocks you silently and indefinitely.TotientDragooned (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No. ArbCom has mishandled this long enough. It's time for the community to create a true consensus regarding the matter. ThemFromSpace19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
self-identifying on Wikipedia is advocacy
I see that has just been added as a comment. May I respectfully point out for instance that many people who hold guns advocate gun control rather than supporting the NRA? Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Self identifying on Wikipedia is advocacy
I've changed the wording to make it clearer that self identifying as a pedophile on Wikipedia is advocacy:
"Editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, or who engage in advocacy regarding adult-child relationships, including self-identifying as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely."
The previous wording: "Editors who self-identify as pedophiles, who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, or who engage in advocacy regarding adult-child relationships will be blocked indefinitely."
That put self-identifying in a different location in the sentence to advocacy, and so people didn't make the connection. Wikipedia is not a support group, so it is innapropriate for anyone to self-identify as pedophile on this project. The act of declaring as a pedophile is a form of advocacy. SilkTork *YES!10:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not just remove all this silliness about self declaration and simply have 'advocacy of pedophile' will lead to a permanent ban? Then you can deal on a case by case basis with people who stick I am a paedophile on their user page. It can't be common and they can probably all be banned for being vandals or some other gormless behaviour anyway but you might just get someone who is a good editor who isn't advocating it. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We can't remove it because the people who instituted this policy do actually ban people for declarations. PowersT15:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Name of this page
Sorry to be an encyclopedic nerdy type, but this isn't really about pedophilia as such, is it (even though that word is commonly used to denote any kind of sexual activity with minors). Can we think of a better term that describes the phenomenon in more encyclopedic and less tabloidic fashion?--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy
Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly banned. Anyone doing so will be blocked on sight and cases should be referred to the ArbCom, rather than having an on-site debate. This has been de facto policy for a very long time. Any pages on Wikipedia which do not reflect this are out of date and should be updated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have any doubts, please take it up with User:Jimbo Wales or the WMF office. If you feel this is wrong, removing the policy tag is not helpful. Instead, try speaking with those who created the policy. Thanks. JehochmanTalk12:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That statement and quote is interesting, but also pointless. Wikipedia may not be used for unlawful purposes anyway. Creating a policy, bizarrely, opens up the encyclopaedia to having to enforce the policy, especially the way this policy document is worded. Examine this sentence:
Editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors, who advocate adult-child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.
"Will be blocked indefinitely" - No they will not. They might be if they are spotted. This policy implies that WMF has a duty to search for and block all such people on sight. It had no such duty until the policy was created. Now it does.
As for "or who identify themselves as pedophiles" that is total creep from our esteemed founder's position. It is wholly wrong. What of the person who says, unwisely, or has said, "I have been attracted to pre-pubertal children all my life, and chosen not to act on that attraction"? Are they now to be banned? Are any of us who edit articles relevant to such topics now to come under suspicion? Do we now expect banning discussions, 5am door knocks by law enforcement? I certainly do not endorse, promote, approve of, campaign for, participate in, or advocate paedophilia in any way, but I've edited articles in that area. Should I stop, now, in case, by implication I have so identified myself? And why do I feel, now, that I have to be careful to say "I certainly do not endorse, promote, approve of, campaign for, participate in, or advocate paedophilia in any way"?
With rewording I might accept it as a quasi-valid policy, but it is, instead, a fashion statement, made to satisfy the current fad for people to imagine paedophiles hiding under every bush.
Any such policy must come out of WMF itself as part of the terms and conditions of use. It is not appropriate for it to be drafted by amateurs, even legally qualified ones, acting as if on behalf of WMF.
Your statement "If you have any doubts..."" is a pre-emptive strike to seek to remove any dissenting voice. It is a very strongly worded statement and should be reconsidered. Since there are doubts, substantial doubts, it would be highly appropriate for WMF to be alerted to come here, to look at the doubts here and on the Village Pump, and to come to their own conclusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait until the RfC (above) hits thirty days and then let it be closed as normal
No one has made a strong argument why we shouldn't follow normal policy WP:PROPOSAL. On something as important as a new policy it seems we should follow policy unless there is an exceptionally strong reason not to. Trying to bypass the normal procedure to speed things up, rarely speeds anything up. Hobit (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the statement Policy is long term de-facto and stays until a consensus can be found to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What makes this policy? The tag that was just put there? Can I tag an essay of mine as policy and argue it must stay that way until consensus is found to remove it? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that community support of the kind that you see on this talk page, where tons of people are complaining about it? wp:Consensus states quite clearly "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." it also says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Since you have failed utterly to demonstrate community consensus on a wider scale, the policy tag should be removed. --Ludwigs215:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is absolutely nothing resembling consensus that this should be policy. Jimbo made some kind of vague statement - fine, I don't disagree with the thought behind what he said. But on how to implement that thought - how to write it into policy, what words to use and what page (new or existing) to put it on - there must be community agreement. I've marked the policy as disputed - those who are trying to bypass the ordinary procedures here are just harming their own cause, making something that isn't really at all controversial into something that seems so.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
@ TotientDragooned: if Off2riorob actually responds to that request, I'll eat my hat. He knows as well as you and I do that there never was a discussion; he just believes that if there had been a discussion it would have come out the way he wants, and he's afraid that if there is a discussion he might be disappointed. To which I can only say: pfffft!
If you think I am afraid you are also mistaken. It is amusing actually when a noisy minority assert and squeal when the silent majority points them to the light. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah the glory of moral rectitude. So, Off2riorob, where's the link? Or is this just bluster? I challenge you to produce it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I too have been asking for such a link, or a link to where the board/Jimbo have told us we are required this be policy. Can we assume neither exists at this point? Hobit (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It certainly doesn't seem that everyone agrees with this policy, at least not as it has been written. One can't just assume the community agrees because the policy because a version of it has been used in the past. As for the "Silent majority", it is more plausible that users are unwilling to speak up about injustices or confusion in this policy for fear of being labeled as advocating pedophilia. Stating that there is consensus is not helping and I thank the editors that are willing to work to clarify this policy's wording and application. If consensus being derived from existing policies, justify the use of the policies rather than blanketing them together with a claim of consensus. Being dismissive of specific critiques while not providing evidence of general consensus neither validates this article nor effectively refutes concerns. —Ost (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I suggest that we can conclude that there is no such discussion and that this is an attempt by a group of well meaning editors to steamroller what they genuinely believe ought to be consensus through as policy in the mistaken belief that they have consensus. You will note that I am assuming good faith here. However I find it offensive that this can happen and be presented as alleged policy without any substantive discussion. The alleged policy is also a bad policy for many reasons that I have stated elsewhere on this page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Except there's no official RfC running at the moment. Somebody should create one, or tag the RfC section above with the RfC tag. ThemFromSpace19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The outcome of said RFC would be to either throw consensus overboard, *or* it would ruin our PR. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me. The inverse of WP:IAR applies here, I guess: If it hurts wikipedia: Don't Do It.
Very Very bother. We'll have to think of something else. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Honestly, this is one of the trickiest situations I've come across.
Concrete proposal
I suggest that the page in its present form, though in principle OK, is (a) wrongly titled (unless we are to adopt the tabloid definition of pedophilia - see above); (b) unnecessary as policy (it can easily be written into existing policy pages); (c) not helpful to ordinary people that might be faced with this actual problem. I therefore propose we do the following:
Make it into a clearly written information page that anyone (including perhaps even children) will be able to udnerstand, telling them what to do if they encounter suspicious behavior of this type, and then link to it from appropriate help pages so that average readers will be able to find it even if they don't know it exists.
I understand your concepts, but policies and other documents like this are or should be part of the terms of use, a legal document drafted by WMF lawyers. We ordinary editors, even if we are qualified lawyers, are too dangerous to allow near this stuff. I really don't want to oppose you, but the foregoing reasons means that I feel I have to, and to oppose this alleged policy at the same time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would a helpful information page on who you should write to if your child is being abused on Wikipedia need to be drafted by lawyers? (Have you ever read anything written by lawyers that members of the public would understand?)--Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't envisage the information page containing any of the debatable wording you talk about there (though that problem would then be shifted to the Blocking Policy page). And OK, if you can get the lawyers to write something useful, that would be great, but they're probably too busy to do something normal editors could do instead.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This page does describe policy as it is currently applied. This policy is being enforced and will continue to be enforced regardless of the bickering over which tag(s) apply to this page until a clear community consensus emerges that the policy is incorrect and the Foundation agree with overturning their current directives to that effect. In other words: never.
No, the the "process" wasn't followed. That does not magically remove the policy or stop its enforcement. Discussion about how to document that policy (as well as whether to document it at all) is appropriate, but no amount of playing with the wording or which tags to put on the page has any effect on the policy itself. Either this page documents it clearly enough that people know what it is or it doesn't. That's all this pointless bickering can achieve.
Which is why you chose to join in the "pointless bickering" by removing the tag that this policy is disputed? --Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if there's a foundation policy on this matter, we could just do a soft redirect to that, and probably that should be the end of the matter. (But I mean a policy that the foundation itself has approved, not one that editors have created, which would be effectively just as devoid of authority as this one.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is the same farce there: m:Talk:Pedophilia And it needs to be stamped on there as well. Coren is right, in a way. Whatever is decided by consensus the same people will still go after people and ban them based upon their view of morality. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Also, none of that precludes the policy from being disputed. You're the one that removed that tag when others were content to join the discussion. By your logic that this is policy regardless of the tag, it is disputed with or without the tag; what harm is had by keeping the page accurate and inviting others to join the discussion? This policy page was created two months ago from a few quotes; is it not conceivable that it may need discussion to develop a full and accurate statement or policy? —Ost (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(odd e/c) But that's not what the disputed tag is for! That tag is used when something might not be policy, not just because some people disagree with the policy (otherwise we'd have to tag every other policy this way). This is policy. — Coren(talk)18:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Most people on this page seem to disagree. To be policy, it has to have been properly approved as such. Otherwise anyone can write something vaguely true on a page and label it policy, and we'll end up with enormous instruction creep and an unmanageable mass of policies which could end up saying anything by the time various editors have had a go at them. This isn't the way we do things; it's sad that an arbitrator should be encouraging this kind of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, first off, of course most people on this talk page seem to disagree. Most of the people who agree spend their time elsewhere. The point remains: if you self-identify as a pedophile or you advocate pedophilia you will get blocked swiftly and quietly the minute someone finds out. That is a simple observation. Documenting this may or may not be the best thing to do, but if you do document it then there is no question that this is policy as currently enforced. — Coren(talk)18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
And the tag says "this page's designation ...as policy ...is disputed". We're questioning if this page should have been designated as policy. Policy (WP:POL) says it shouldn't have been; and there is certainly no consensus here for ignoring the rule. So the right thing to do would be to remove the policy tag, but since it keeps being edit-warred back, we can compromise and have a policy tag with a disputed tag alongside.--Kotniski (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)That sounds like your interpretation of the use of the tag. Maybe this sentiment is de facto policy derived from other policies, but the exact wording is certainly disputed. The policy is short and there are a number of individuals discussing if this page even accurately represents the status quo for various reasons. Additionally, this page has not been around or well-known for long; I would expect responsible editors to dispute a supposed policy until it is accurately stated. Even if a previously hidden policy is accepted, the page explaining that policy can be disputed for incorrectly interpreting or explaining it. —Ost (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The page is going to end up being protected again if people keep reverting the tags, so if people want to be allowed to go on editing it (whether admins or non-admins) the reverting needs to stop. Whatever tag is on it makes no difference anyway because this is, as a matter of fact, what admins will do if they encounter this kind of thing. SlimVirgintalk|contribs19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Coren, when you say that this page "documents policy" but can't change policy - does that go for all the other pages? If people tweak the wording on WP:V or WP:BLP, you would say that they are only changing how your policies are documented, but what they actually are is strictly up to ArbCom? Wnt (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no. Arguably, any policy page that diverges with actual practice is obviously erroneous and no longer documents policy properly (and should probably be fixed). ArbCom is one of the factors of what "actual practice" is, though it is not the only one; but certainly decisions by ArbCom in the past have caused some policies to be tweaked and the policy pages were generally edited to reflect that. So have changing community mores, and simple discussion leading to a new consensus.
Indeed, trying to change policy by editing the policy page is generally seen as the wrong way to do things: at best it can lead to a discussion that ends up changing the policy, but fundamentally the page simply documents what is and does not make it so. Wikipedia policies are not statute law; their text does not create the rule, they simply document it. — Coren(talk)19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish everyone understood that equally well.
However, I'm not entirely sure that this is the policy being carried out by the en.wp community as such. I have the idea that it is being carried out despite the community. So if it is a policy being practiced by people outside the mandate of the community, that's interesting, and worth mentioning; but it would not be a policy of this community itself.
If you think this sounds like a bunch of boring politics; well, it is. But it is exactly this kind of boring politics that leads to people truly getting hurt, I'm afraid. We need to proceed carefully.
ArbCom and its individual members cannot just declare whatever they want to be policy, especially when this "policy" was supposedly created and enforced solely by ArbCom. There is nothing within ArbCom's authority that allows it or any of its members to do so. ArbCom's purpose is dispute resolution, not policy creation. If anything, this page describes how ArbCom has abused its authority in the past to create illegitimate "policies" without consensus. ThemFromSpace19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:CONEXCEPT: "Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status." Jimbo and the WMF say this is policy, not ArbCom. Unless they change their minds, it's going to stay policy, community consensus or not. Fences&Windows22:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to events earlier this year, that statement is no longer entirely true in practice, and is in need of update. We're just not going to update it in the middle of a dispute, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion
I agree with Risker that these kinds of blocks are already covered by existing policy, and given the dispute the status of the page is causing, I'm wondering whether it would be best to MfD it. These situations do not arise often, so we're arguing over matters of principle that would be better argued elsewhere. In addition, the existence of the page makes it seem as though blocks for these reasons are needed a lot, which gives a false impression that isn't necessarily in the project's interests. SlimVirgintalk|contribs18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Where in existing policy are these kinds of blocks covered? (I just had a look at WP:BLOCK and couldn't find anything that would obviously be taken to mean what this page states.) Though I agree that the statements on this page should appear in existing policy pages rather than on an unnecessary new one (see my three-point proposal above).--Kotniski (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this page is needed either (though apparently having something to point the moronic press at might help). But if we are to have a page at all, it needs to be correct. — Coren(talk)18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What about the idea of having a page of easy-to-follow instructions for users (not only established editors) to report suspected potential child abusers? --Kotniski (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) To reply to Kotniski's first question above, where a user is being disruptive or in some other way behaving inappropriately, they risk being blocked, and that would include self-identification as someone wanting to commit sexual crimes. If you saw a user call himself a rapist and edit in a way that advocated rape, and you went to AN/I for help, you'd be stunned if the admins said there was nothing they could do about it. So it's covered by WP:BLOCK (e.g. "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct ... is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia"), WP:DISRUPTION, WP:IAR, WP:DICK, and probably a few other pages too.
Yes, what you quote certainly doesn't clearly imply what this page says. Also you seem to be missing the point many people have been making: someone who admits to being a paedophile is not saying they want to commit crimes; they might very strongly not want to commit crimes (despite having urges which, if followed, would cause them to commit crimes). If saying "I'm a paedophile" is unacceptable behaviour (I'm not sure why it is, but I suppose it is), then we have to say it explicitly.--Kotniski (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Saying "I'm a pedophile" is similar to saying "I have an urge to commit rape". Are you sure you can't see why posting that in a public space is unacceptable? SlimVirgintalk|contribs18:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the context, but if the full statement is "I have an urge to commit rape. It's a mental affliction I find repulsive, and am taking extensive medication and therapy to suppress it. I have never acted on my urges and don't intend to. Despite my disability I feel I could make a positive contribution to this fine encyclopedia, but want the community to be fully-informed about my condition" then no, I don't see why it's unacceptable.TotientDragooned (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it? I can't think of any valid reason to make such a statement on an encyclopedia-building project. It's not germane, and it's sufficiently inflammatory that it could be seen by many as disruptive. We are not facebook, this isn't the right place to post random facts about oneself. — Coren(talk)19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but we allow people to post other potentially disruptive material such as national or religious affiliation on their user pages, without blocking them on sight. It's singling out people with pedophilia for special treatment that I have a problem with. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Too late. We're already there, and knee deep. This is pretty much the kind of hypothetical situation that the anti-userboxers were worried about. Now it has come to pass. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)/me hands out shovels
Unnecessary and unsound
First of all, the word pedophile should be taken out of any policy because the word is supercharged and the meaning is unclear. Plus, if you have a policy that identifies "pedophilia" as the target and someone is misidentified and blocked in accordance with this policy, you're setting Wiki up for all kinds of liability. It is not likely that a person is going to self-identify as a "pedophile." To falsely accuse someone of pedophilia is defamation per se, and with the ambiguity over the definition, this creates a powder keg.
Regarding the ambiguity of definition: DSM-IV has guidelines, then there's the layperson's understanding of "pedophilia", and there are offenses of sexual assault of a child (or the like) which will have different meanings vary from state to state. Age of consent laws vary by jurisdiction, so a "child" in Texas may not be a "child" in Florida. There's been discussion about compliance with Florida law because that is where the wiki servers are, but if a Texas child is solicited by a perpetrator in Florida, then the offense can be charged in Texas under Texas law and a civil suit could likely be maintained in Texas as well. I think it's narrow-minded to limit any discussion to the laws of Florida. It is impossible to pin down a universally applicable definition of pedophilia.
Second, even if you could adequately define "pedophile" for purposes of formulating policy, why pigeonhole WMF by a precise definition? Undoubtedly there will be someone who skirts the policy by cleverly placing him/her self just outside the definition. Would that person still be blocked? Of course they would because there is no need for a formal policy to define what is harmful behavior directed at minors who need protection -- we recognize it when we see it, and there should remain enough flexibility for enforcement of the spirit and purpose of keeping Wiki free of predators without confining anyone to rigid definitions.
Third, is there not a policy that Wikipedia shall not be used to engage in illegal activities or to advocate for or solicit illegal activities? If there's no such policy in place, there should be. There is no sound reason to single out this particularly reprehensible form of criminal conduct as sanctionable -- that creates an implication that that other types of criminal activity is endorsed or tolerated, and I cannot believe that is Wiki policy or practice. Jimbo stating that there is a zero-tolerance policy and Sue Gardner stating that there is a long-standing policy of zero-tolerance is adequate. If Fox News ran a story that Wiki is a haven for murderers of arsonists to conspire and further their illegal activities, I would imagine Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner could just as easily say there is a zero-tolerance policy against such activities, and it would be true even though you will not find it spelled out in writing.
NB: I did just take a quick look at the terms of use linked below the edit box, and there is no such prohibition against illegal activities. If anyone could answer this question about illegal activities in general, that would be helpful.
I don't think there is such an explicit policy, but certainly any egregious case would fall under the "brings the project into disrepute" heading, or at least count as disruption. — Coren(talk)18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Making a policy against committing illegal activities on Wikipedia doesn't seem so unreasonable, though it's very near pointless. An editor could end up in jail... and he might have to start a new Wikipedia account. Wikipedia doesn't dare maintain illegal material, so he'd also have to come up with something illegal that he can do over the internet that isn't illegal for Wikipedia to keep up on the server.
But making a policy against advocating illegal activities on Wikipedia would be unacceptable and would undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia. There are articles on drug legalization and medical marijuana and countless other such topics where people expect to be able to read about all points of view. Now you could say that covering such activities with a very remote encyclopedic tone keeps it clear that it isn't advocacy, but that only goes so far. Eventually on talk pages and elsewhere it becomes unclear whether someone is simply saying that a proponent's argument is well founded based on factual information, and saying that the argument is well founded based on factual information. When one side is subject to such a climate of intimidation and the other is not, the result will be some very bad timid juvenile writing, even if somehow the users manage to balance out the point of view by themselves.
The idea that Wikipedia is "free of predators" based on this policy (or any broader ban on advocacy) is absolutely laughable. How many child molesters run around with a warning label? That sort of false sense of security is all by itself a good reason to change this policy. I imagine that if there's a predator who's worked out a good way to lure kids in from Wikipedia, he probably [... no sense giving them ideas, but he's doing something else]. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think the goal probably is to have Wiki be free from predators, and to that end when predators are identified, they are banished -- there's no need for a written policy. Advocating for drug legalization is no the same as advocating for illegal drug use. And on the issue of crimes against children, there should be a different threshhold because children are unable to advocate for themselves against movements that push for relaxation of laws that would be harmful to an unprotected group. It still does not need to be a formal written policy for the reasons I stated. Minor4th• talk19:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. There is a pretty sharp difference between advocating for the legalization of heroin, and advocating the legalization of forcibly injecting children with heroin. If there were some notable community of people who advocating injecting children with heroin, we would have an article on them, but would not entertain fringe theories proposing that this is beneficial to children. We would quite rightly ban people who tried to insert such a POV into our entries, and I can not imagine that we would be particularly welcoming to editors who advertised on their user pages that they in fact injected heroin into children, or that they felt a compulsion to do so, or that they advocated such behavior. bd2412T19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"In the child's interest" is not an appeal to emotion. Children are not chattel or objects that exist solely for the gratification of other more powerful adults. Children are vulnerable members of society who are not able to self determine because they do not have the cognitive development to make reasoned, informed judgments or weigh consequences. That's not emotion, that's an observable fact. Children are not able to protect themselves from harm and will be exploited and stripped of self determination if society does not preserve children intact until they reach a level of development to make choices and be held accountable for those own choices. Society decides what is harmful and what is illegal -- if society says that sexual exploitation of children is harmful to children, there is no argument to be made that it is beneficial to them. Neither is there any justification for Wiki to allow the advocacy of harm. Minor4th• talk22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears some Wiki editors refuse to accept Pedophilia restrictions
I might start writing the Fox article now. I personally find it incredulous that editors could dispute this, the world is watching and organisations have been brought down by such issues that the general public find incredulous. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me like a wonderful tool that can be used to "vanish" editors. Claim they were advocating pedophilia, then ArbCom comes by, deletes their userpage and all history of it and wipes out all trace of their contributions, then bam! Banned for life without any proof of anything. And even then their usefulness STILL does not end! Anyone else you don;t like? Pretend that ArbCom "investigated" the person and found they were a sockpuppet of an earlier account. Congrats, Jimbo, you've re-created the red scare of the 50's, only now it's under the guise of "protecting the children" rather than "protecting our way of life".72.160.19.191 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that the community as a whole disputes this, and would agree with having a well-publicized RFC, broken out into the specific points of contention, to demonstrate this. bd2412T19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the header to this section to avoid the very thing you're suggesting here, Off2riorob; I trust you won't mind. The fact is, there are as many voices supporting this on this page as seem to be opposed (don't forget the archives), and even several of those who have spoken out in opposition have qualified their positions, agreeing with some aspects of this longstanding practice while disputing some others, or expressing concern about how it fits with the general philosophy of the project. Risker (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the dispute is about wording, and a lot of it is about whether it makes sense to maintain this as a stand-alone statement of policy. Forcing the issue into a black-and-white yay or nay vote right now would probably force a lot of people to say they do not support it in its current state, when they might with even minor changes, or further discussion comforting them as to how it might be interpreted. There's no reason this couldn't be discussed on this talk page for a few more days, or even weeks. At the end of the day, no one is going to say that admins are currently or ever will be forbidden from blocking pedophiles confirmed as trolling Wikipedia for victims. So let's not get hysterical and panicky here. That will only polarize things unnecessarily. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there community consensus to support as policy
PAUSED - see #PAUSE level 3 heading for discussion
oppose both the policy as written and the attempt to steamroller this as policy when no prior discussion had taken place. Creating this policy is not for editors to perform. It is for WMF and its lawyers to make a legal determination and to enshrine that, if appropriate, into the terms and conditions of use. Any alleged policy that editors make here, with or without consensus, can bind WMF irrevocably to a course of action that it may be incapable of carrying out. That would endanger the entire enterprise. Editors proposing this as policy may be well meaning, but, even if they are qualified lawyers, have no right to bind WMF legally. This is the alleged Wisdom of Crowds turned insane. This is the committee who tried to design a horse and ended up with a camel. This alleged policy also opens up editors to the risk of a witch hunt. We will have the Crucible here soon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support. Any sort of identification with this activity is harmful to the project, harmful to children, and harmful to those who are afflicted with the condition. bd2412T19:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - If the question is "do you support this to be a policy?" My answer is yes, but if the question "is this already a policy?" then the answer is no. The practice is to block for many things e.g. racism, but I cannot create a page that document this practice and label it as policy, without going through the process. Sole Soul (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Article has been assumed/claimed/ as ongoing policy and that has been disputed. So the question as formed in this RFC is "do you support this to be a policy?" it is also a general question to mostly what we have in the article now, it will of course be available for tweaking as are all other policies. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as written terms are not well defined (At what age is someone a child for example, and what if two "children" editors are engaged in sexual activity?) and need to be. A full RfC on the wording would likely get us to a good place. Also I think this might be best kept as part of WP:BLOCK _if_ it is going to remain as terse as this. I also object to how we got here. I largely support the spirit of the thing, but the details are non-trivial. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Quibbling about the exact definition of a pedophile is a pointless distraction that completely fails to recognize the intent and purpose of this policy. Anyone attempting to use Wikipedia to initiate a sexual relationship with a child or minor, whichever, needs to be kicked out. Period. Anyone who is trying to advocate for pedophilia on Wikipedia, regardless of how that term is defined, should be as unwelcome here as they are in all social environments where children and minors are present. Period. Full strop. No exceptions. While I do not believe this is as widespread a problem as been reported by unscrupulous journalists, it nonetheless requires a zero-tolerance response. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Full stop eh? So if a 17 year old meets someone here and has a relationship with them (say another 17 year old) you'd block? Both 16? One 15 one 19? Or perhaps you'd like to make an exception in your statement somewhere? My point is that this isn't as simple as you'd have us believe. Of course, I don't think it's as simple as ThemFromSpace would have us think either. Life is full of gray. I strongly believe that we need a policy like this, I just think it needs to say what we mean it to say. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop being so (deliberately) obtuse. Obviously we don't know the exact ages of every WP user. The point is that anyone who acts like a pedophile on Wikipedia, under any reasonable definition of the term should be hard blocked immediately upon being detected. And yes, without exception. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Support: "The practice and advocacy of "pedophilia" (child sexual abuse) on the English Wikipedia are strictly prohibited." Fight over details if you must, but supporting this core statement is the only option open to decent humans.--Milowent (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as written It should be a general policy about dealing with advocating or trying to support crime. This looks like trying to turn notability of films into a policy without a general notability policy. This is a derivative of an unwritten policy, not a policy in itself Dmcq (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Very strong oppose in any way, shape, or form. On a site where open editing and transparancy is a virtue, I will oppose all forms of discrimination and prejudice against individuals and groups wherever and whenever they rear their ugly heads. Block for POV pushing, not for personal affiliation. There is a place for everybody within Wikipedia, even people whose morals I don't agree with. This is something I cannot compromise on, as anything short of full equality is an injustice. ThemFromSpace20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: Do you support an editor's right to engage in hate speech against minorities or other protected classes of people? Why or why not? Minor4th• talk22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Come on Them, there must be some logical limit to that point of view, right? It is discrimination, no doubt, but we "discriminate" against vandal editors too. What about if someone came onto wikipedia who said their sole mission in life was to, a la Hannibal Lechter, eat ThemFromSpace. They promised never to push their POV on any article, but were watching your every edit so they could find you and eat you. Occassionaly them make comments on talk pages about how you would taste good with bacon. Is there a place for this hypothetically absurd person on wikipedia?--Milowent (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I generally don't like any kind of blanket statements about groups of people. As someone once said the less often a man makes broad generalizations the less likely they are to look foolish in retrospect. This is the exception. We should discriminate against anyone who gives even a vague impression of being a pedophile or child predator. As I've said, it's not in the project's (or society's) best interest to try and differentiate between dangerous predators and "normal" pedophiles. Pedophiles are not welcome in any social situation where children are present and that is exactly as it should be and exactly what we should be doing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. I support it as policy in the sense that this is what happens, so it's descriptive, plus advice for admins about leaving neutral edit summaries. But as there's disagreement about calling it policy, I'd also support restoring the "information page" tag, which is how it was created. Or blanking the page and redirecting it to a couple of sentences in BLOCK. SlimVirgintalk|contribs20:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Delay this vote. We first need to be on the same page whether editors have the right to set, repeal, or change this policy at all! Some people may be opposing the policy because they think it should be mandatory, or supporting it because they think that they can control what a policy says by editing it (which Coren is disputing here). So this poll may give highly misleading results. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a question in to Jimbo on this. For the moment I think we should proceed assuming that the community has a right to modify this as we do all policy. If that changes, this !vote won't matter anyways. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to user Wnt -No, there was warring that the basic core principle was not policy, it was suggested that there was no community support for policy status. This is a simple RFC that asks does the community support the basic principle as policy or not. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
oppose - not quite there yet We have an undocumented zero tolerance policy of blocking pedos on sight and without warning, I support that policy and have myself helped enforce it. I think it would be a good idea to document that policy, and as per various threads on this page I consider that the current version is almost but not quite there. ϢereSpielChequers21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Strongest possible support There can be no ambiguity that the use of Wikipedia should in absolutely no way be ever used in a predatory means towards children. Can we adjust the wording? Of course; but we should act firmly and quickly on this. J04n(talk page)21:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutral This is the practice. Take it or leave it. Whether we call it Policy, Practice, Meta-Policy, Information, Tuna Sandwich, or Iron Maiden is pretty irrelevant. I fully support the practice as described in this permalink. Other changes are simply instruction creep, IMO, and should be reverted --Jubilee♫clipman22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Support:regardless of quibbling over wording, persons who advocate, promote or encourage sex with children, who seek children to have sex with, or who in any way present the view that having sex with children is something they might consider engaging in, can go and edit somewhere else. This is the policy as it happens. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant - it is a policy by decree of Jimbo at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Zero-tolerance_policy_towards_pedophilia. This is a serious enough situation where Jimbo/the Foundation/whoever needs to step in and declare pedophilia advocacy out of bounds for Wikipedia. Jimbo has done so and I applaud him for that. It was inappropriate for this policy to be tagged as disputed. --B (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Support I support the defacto practice whereby pedophiles and pedophilia advocates are quietly banned. I do not support a "policy" page because editors will think they can modify the practice by editing the page. Those pushing for an open door policy are not solving a real problem because anyone can edit: the only people who are banned are those who demonstrate their poor judgment by declaring support for pedophilia. Pedophiles are known to use the Internet for advocacy and grooming, and supporting a group that has been banned from other websites is not part of our mission. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
PAUSED Do not add further comments yet. (see #PAUSE)
PAUSE
Ok, someone got the smart idea to start a vote. It's currently 8 oppose to 78 support. But forget the numbers, let's look at the possible outcomes:
A majority votes Support: We're fucked, because WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV are toast.
A majority votes oppose: We're fucked, because the press will declare that wikipedia is pro-pedophilia
No consensus: We're still pretty much fucked, but this is altogether the best case outcome.
Knowing these possible outcomes; I suggest that restarting this RFC would violate WP:POINT ; because the negative outcomes are record-level disruptive, and the only reason to continue is to prove a point.
Turn brain on, turn automatic support/oppose behaviour off. ;-)
My wiki-existence-limiting recommendation is to discuss carefully, instead of voting; Thank you!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)(Of course, this is my personal assessment, and -as a fallible human being- I could be wrong. Folks have been bold, they have been "reverted" (by me), now we need some discussion on what is the right path forward (WP:BRD - variant) . So let's discuss! :-)
My assessment of your assessment: you're saying we must accept this policy, because attempting to dispute it will lead to bad things happening? --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how one goes from saying "discuss carefully" to "we must accept". ;-)
I'm pointing out the particular lose-lose scenario presented by straight up-down voting. So Let's Not Do That. Other scenarios may or may not be fine. Let's try them and see! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as pause goes and outcome one and outcome two and three goes the fact is that if there is support for pedophilia on this site then users, readers and the world should know about it and just because your frightened that may be the outcome is no excuse to pause the RFC. I suggest people ignore the pause and lets see if these is support for pedophiles or not. Off2riorob (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly Wikipedians don't support pedophilia. Opposing a flawed policy because you want a more effective anti pedophile policy is not support for pedophilia and any journalist who tried to spin things that way deserves rebuttal and ridicule. However if we replace our unwritten policy with a flawed written one then there is a real risk that the press will read the criticism here and report on that. ϢereSpielChequers08:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The practice and advocacy of "pedophilia" (child sexual abuse) on the English Wikipedia are strictly prohibited. Editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with children, who advocate adult-child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.
Its not a very complicated statement is it. Where I come from anyone that doesn't support that statement would not get a good response from the local community.Off2riorob (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope that means you come from somewhere that considers fifteen year olds as children. To quote Child"A 'child' (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority." So one complication in your statement is whether it means child in the legal sense of anyone under the age of majority, or the biological definition of childhood. Another is that it doesn't specify which age of majority you are using. I think 18 is the most common in the Western world, but I know of countries where 16 year olds can marry and others where 20 year olds can't drink beer. So one criticism that I would make of your suggested wording is that I'd like extend it to to teenagers up to a certain age of majority. I'm also uncomfortable with your suggestion that we just block offenders indefinitely, as in my view that isn't always enough; I would like our policy to be that in some circumstances we would report pedos to the authorities. ϢereSpielChequers11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Legal age of consent for heterosexual sex in different countries around the world. I think we are better of not specifying an age of majority, given that ages of consent for heterosexual sex vary, from 12 in the Philippines and parts of Mexico, 13 in Argentina and Spain, 14 and 15 in China and much of South America and Europe to 16–18 in most of the rest of the world. See graphic as well as this table. Obviously, it would make no sense whatsoever to ban a 16-year-old German editor who lets slip that he has lawfully slept with his 14-year-old girlfriend as a pedophile. --JN46612:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thinking outside the box
There has clearly been an enormous amount of interest is this page since I last checked in. There has also been a lot of dispute over then tag, yet again, since the protection expired.
Perhaps one solution to this problem is to create an entirely new category for such pages as this, i.e. those that reflect practice but are not or cannot (for whatever reason) necessarily be accepted as policy. The tag therefore could say: "This page documents an English Wikipedia practice, a widely accepted method of dealing with a specific issue that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect the fact that the practice has changed." We would also need a page describing in more detail how "Practice" differs from "Policy".
If that idea is either too zany or flawed to be of any use, perhaps this page should be moved upwards to become a meta-Policy; i.e., it should be moved to m:Pedophilia, replacing MZMcBride's excellent start at that page (who also created this page), and discussed there rather than here. This page should then simply redirect there. Clearly this is a Policy/Practice that will be applied to all Wikimedia projects without exception. "Will be", I say, with or without any specifically worded page.
The somewhat philosophical questions that are being raised in this talkpage are mostly way offbeat, IMO: the page distinguishes (or did distignuish) between "clear cases" (e.g. an adult saying he/she likes having sex with 6 year olds) and less clear cases (e.g. someone arguing that the Age of Consent should be lowered to 12). It also explains (or did) that this issue needs to be handled with extreme sensitivity. I am not sure the above discussions all qualify, personally, and I think the time has long past for everyone to stand back and look at this page in the cold light of day. Both ArbCom and Jimbo Wales have clearly and precisely explained the Practice: we can argue all we like but it ain't gonna change... --Jubilee♫clipman19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't think it a bad idea. The point of this page, I think, is to document existing practice. Whether it's labeled "policy" or not certainly has no importance. — Coren(talk)19:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Not everything has to be debated before hand, this simply reflects what has already been going on for several years. In point of fact that actually makes a stronger case for it being labelled as policy since written policies are supposed to reflect what is done in practice, as opposed to dictating new practices. This is de facto policy, if somebody wants to change it, we can have that conversation but continued edit warring over the policy designation is a waste of everyone's time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
However good an admin is at their job I'm not going to vote for someone who calls me childish and ignores the principle of consensus saying they know better. The way this is being done breaks core principles of the foundation of Wikipedia. Are the arbitration committee so divorced from the community that they do not trust self governance and consensus decisions? Are they disenchanted by democracy in America and want to follow the Chinese model now or what has happened to them? Do you really believe the community will vote to support paedophiles or something? What is wanted is a bit more thought about the principles and actions. Personally I want the paedophile bit removed from whats written and it used as a basis for all suspected serious criminal activity or support for such.
Could I respectfully ask you to stop talking about ignoring the community and doing things despite them? Please? Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(repetition of moves) CONEXCEPT is in flux at this point in time. (text won't be modified till this discussion over though) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Directly on topic for this section: I like the practice tag. I'll take it! :-) (except: Be aware that it might not apply to *this* page :-/ ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Common ground
I believe that even those of us who have problems with the policy as currently worded support blocking editors who come on Wikipedia with the purpose of pursuing relationships with children. I therefore propose that we agree for now on some common ground everyone can live with, for example
Sexual exploitation of children on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with children will be blocked indefinitely.
Allegations concerning abuse of children can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil and avoid engaging in speculative public accusation. If you are aware of behavior by an editor that may breach the policy described above, then you should contact the Arbitration Committee privately by e-mail at arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org.
and hash out the more controversial bits (should we block editors for advocacy? What's the line between advocacy and legitimate concerns about NPOV? etc) in a well-publicized and organized RFC. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Your example, while better, binds WMF to blocking each and every one. This is not possible. It can block or cause to be blocked those which come to its notice. Binding WMF to something that cannot be carried out endangers the enterprise. This is not for editors, however well intentioned, to decide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right. Not for editors. This is not a community decision, it's a legal decision involving legal rights and responsibilities. There are limits on community consensus, and this is one of them. Minor4th• talk22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Tim, you've said this repeatedly, and it's bollocks. It doesn't bind WMF to block everyone, and more than any other Wikipedia policy does. One of the founders has said that Wikipedia has zero tolerance for paedophiles. That doesn't bind WMF to block every one either. The only way a Wikipedia admin can take action against a paedophile is if they somehow identify themselves - by self declaration, by their editing, or (and this is a real case) using the same name across a number of sites, getting thrown off other sites for pestering other members, putting up a website with their details on, and ending up with an anti-paedo watchgroup stringing it all together (yes, he REALLY was that stupid).
What I think (may be wrong) you may be thinking of is the way Facebook - and before it Myspace - was dragooned into checking its members against the various online lists of sex criminals released by the authorities. Since it is not necessary to submit personal info to edit wikipedia, there is no way anyone could do this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What is being proposed here is no different from the Terms of Service found on virtually every website, eg Facebook here: "You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory." For the purposes of Wikipedia, this would mean not doing anything that would violate State of Florida law, which pedophile activity clearly would.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"You will not use wikipedia to do anything unlawful". Meet this guy, ask some arbcom member, and see how much of a success the encyclopedia had in stopping that single threat... Hrotovice (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
@Elen Oh, good. I'm glad it's bollocks, just because you say so. Your assumption is incorrect. Design your camel then. My opposition stands. And I no longer care. The Wisdom Of Crowds, eh. More like "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
How interesting. I was waiting for some sort of retort like that. If the cap fits then by all means pick it up and wear it, though it was aimed at no particular target. But note that your use of bollocks was highly uncivil. Now I'm off to do something far more pleasurable than comment here, like stick pins in my eyes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That could make it difficult to read the statement about commenting on the edit not the editor:). You are equally welcome to say that a comment of mine is utterly wrong with whatever phrase you choose, but you may not call me stupid, even en masse (you may not call me en masse either). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The draft above seems reasonable, but I think we can close in further on just what sort of self-identification might not be permissible. I would propose:
It is not possible for Wikipedia to exclude pedophiles, because accounts are available to any editor without taking fingerprints or running background checks. The same is true of public libraries and shopping malls, which typically do not exclude even registered sex offenders, even when library cards or shopper loyalty cards allow for cross-checking of identity information. Parents and children themselves must be "streetwise" and take precautions to avoid abuse.
Whenever it is brought to our attention, Wikipedia relies on blocking policy and banning policy to prevent the harassment of other visitors. As child rape is a form of violence, the threat of child rape will be treated as a threat of violence. It is longstanding Wikipedia policy that editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate sexual relationships with children will be blocked indefinitely. The same is true of those who threaten or express the intention to do so.
There are certain circumstances under which self-professed pedophiles can be a productive force for the encyclopedia and for society, such as when providing content about or requesting information regarding treatments for pedophilia. But casual self-identification, especially by those who appear to make excuses for child sexual abuse, rapidly approaches intolerable harassment and may be treated as such.
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that all viewpoints about these issues should be welcome, but this does not extend to advocacy and "POV-pushing" meant to undermine this neutrality. Sources minimizing the harm of child sexual abuse are very often viewed as "fringe" viewpoints, which should not be given "undue weight".
Allegations concerning pedophilia can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil. If an editor's behavior appears to breach the policy described above, you may report the matter to the administrators' noticeboard. You should avoid drawing provocative conclusions: instead list all relevant "diffs" (individual edits from the History page of the relevant article or talk page), together with direct quotations. The WP:SOCK policy allows for you to create an extra account to handle such a sensitive situation, if you do not wish the action to be identified with your main account and contain all your discussion of the matter solely to the new account. Administrators should block the user with a neutral block summary, and talk-page editing and the ability to send e-mails through the user interface should be disabled. The blocking administrator should notify the Arbitration Committee as soon as possible.
Yes but they don't spend their time asking about treatments. They spend their time writing utter nonsense such as this. Their entire purpose is to rehearse a series of well-worn logical fallacies in the hope that some gullible and probably under0age reader will fall for it. (Peter Damian) 86.164.244.115 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, the LAST thing you want someone doing is reporting to AN. That's why the instructions are NOT to plaster 'Child Molester' across the account and instead to contact Arbcom. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the benefits of transparency outweigh the problems. Much of the present brouhaha is based on the problem that we really don't know what all these people banned by ArbCom really did to get banned. Many of those banned do have "pedophile" plastered either on the talk page or in an edit summary, and in any case the short list of indefinite bans in WP:BU is a pretty dead giveaway, even if we didn't have organizations like Wikisposure keeping track for everyone. If people go to ANI, submit the diffs (which is the only thing that really seems all that valuable anyway in such controversies) and leave it to the community to hash it out, you'll get some public verdict one way or the other. Maybe you make could oversight/suppress such conversations afterward, but I don't think that is actually an improvement over a clear acquittal. The most important thing is that the community should know and be involved in what happens. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It boggles my mind that you just said that. The benefits of transparency outweigh the problems? Till you have people labeling a person a pedophile with a long, drawn out PUBLIC discussion, to be jumped on all and sundry. I really hate to do this, but imagine it was YOU in that position. Would you still think that? SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That said, I think the idea of having a page of advice somewhere to kids, parents and teachers (parents, watch your kids on the net, kids don't put personal details up, if someone makes you feel nervous talk to a responsible adult - the usual stuff) is a really good idea, particularly as we - quite rightly - have no minimum age policy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't really do this (mostly out of laziness, but also to avoid overly lengthening the draft), but such a page seems a really good idea. I should link "streetwise" to something. I'm surprised someone hasn't made one (or have they?) Wnt (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There are still parts I'm uncomfortable with, for example I'm not sure what the parenthetical "especially by those who appear to make excuses for child sexual abuse" is driving at, but I could live with this version. I much prefer it to the current wording. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the first one much better. Today's Guardian newspaper carries an interview with Gail Dines [10]. In the process of researching her latest book
she recently interviewed a number of men in prison who had committed rape against children. All were habitual users of child pornography. "What they said to me was they got bored with 'regular' porn and wanted something fresh. They were horrified at the idea of sex with a prepubescent child initially but within six months they had all raped a child."
I'll be honest, this scares me a lot, and I find the spark of sympathy generated by the idea that this is a paraphilia that individuals are cursed with, rapidly evaporating in the face of such evidence.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't trust anti-pornography crusaders: those committed to censorship must loosen their allegiance to truth. Even if she found such men, we would still need to see, for example, whether their claim that pornography did this to them was associated with a better prospect of release. It is so widely believed among the public that pedophiles are impossible to treat, how could I believe that their choice is just a voluntary fling? Especially considering the repugnance of the idea to everyone else! Wnt (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I find the reluctance of the 'pro-porn crusaders' to mention the money displays a loose allegiance to truth: I've also lived long enough to have observed the increasing level of violence in pornography as a simple fact. I do agree about the possibility that the statements were made as a strategy towards release - prisoners say other things for the same reason, and more information would really be required to assess it. However, I do find it concerning, because it 'ups the ante' on the advocacy/POV thing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
At least on Wikipedia, pro-porn crusaders aren't doing it for the money! And with offerings like Commons:Category:Silvana Suárez, they might just put the pornography industry almost out of business. ;)
I don't know honest that study is, but I do know that it suffers from severe sampling bias: it only covers men who have raped a child. It completely omits men who have viewed child pornography without raping a child, and based on the crime reports in my local newspaper, the non-rapists outnumber the rapists at least ten to one. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It just disconcerted me because of the possibility that someone might be persuaded into this offence - something I think most people would not previously have thought possible. I'm also aware that where rape has been used as a war crime, the rapists (a)didn't start out as monsters and (b)in many reports from many different cultures, do not distinguish between women, girls and female children as rape targets, so it would appear that the desire to have sex with children is not limited to the paraphilia condition.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't intended to explain ArbCom's "practice", but to replace it with a community-generated policy, and to bring all aspects of the process, including the decision whether to block or not, into the routine course of site administration. Buddy's essay is a running historical record should not be merged with it. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"This isn't intended to explain ArbCom's "practice", but to replace it with a community-generated policy". Unless the policy is that anyone who identifies as, encourages, promotes, advocates or engages in paedophilia or online activities associated with paedophilia (grooming etc) will be blocked on sight, you have here a triumph of hope over experience I fear.
The fact is, pro-paedophile activism is an instant ban, appeal only to ArbCom. It has been that way for some years. I have no idea why this is suddenly being disputed, but that is the simple fact of the matter. You can test it if you feel like risking your account in a breaching experiment, but I don't recommend it. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the original text is unnecessarily complicated, and the proposed rewrite makes it much worse. My attempt:
Wikipedia does not condone the advocacy of sexual child abuse or any other form of child molestation. Editors who attempt to suggest that under some conditions such practices may be acceptable or innocent may be blocked indefinitely without prior warning.
Actually, I think it would be better to have a separate dedicated list for this, read by a separate dedicated group of admins. --Lambiam23:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the use of a phrase like 'sexual child abuse' rather than paedophilia, because it's clearer. I'm sure you'll get some of the editors on this page squealing about NPOV though, and one would need to be clear that someone could describe the FRINGE view (as you have done) without supporting it or even condoning it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"Editors who attempt to suggest that under some conditions such practices may be acceptable or innocent may be blocked indefinitely without prior warning."
The way this is worded now has very strong chilling effects. Basically, if we happen to be wrong in whole or in part (as WP, or as society), there's no way back out, because we've made the very discussion of that possibility anathema.
We create an ever-tightening ratchet, in which more and more things become evil. (this causes collateral damage)
So we need the ability to suggest ways to back off, and not end up in a hysterical cycle.
If you leave out that sentence, the text is fine for now.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)(Example of collateral damage: I recall a recent discussion on reddit, where many males said they would refuse to assist a lost child, up to and including even if doing so would likely lead to the death of the child; because they felt the risk of being labeled a pedophile was simply too great ).
I see what you're getting at Kim. How would it be to replace suggest with 'persuade' or 'push the POV'. We know what POV warriors look like, there is a clear difference between making your point (which suggests that there is a hysteria against 'paedophilia' which is causing collateral damage) and attempting to pov push that it should be made acceptable to have sex with 3 year olds.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK the next hurdle is "If it comes to the attention of Wikipedia editors that a user has taken part in, promoted or encouraged any illegal activity involving children elsewhere on the internet, they will be blocked without warning." We do this as well. I think it needs a stronger criterion than pov pushing, but if one of the anti-paedo sites has collated information and someone points out to an admin that this is User:X (and it has happened), then the admin should block and report to Arbcom (and NOT plaster Child Molester all over the userpage).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does not condone the advocacy of sexual child abuse..." A deliberately obtuse reading of this suggests by omission that Wikipedia does condone advocacy of non-sexual child abuse, sexual abuse of adults, etc. Obviously such a reading would not be correct, but could perhaps be avoided by another rewording? cmadler (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. Does this work
Wikipedia does not condone paedophilia. Any editor whether named or anonymous found using Wikipedia to engage in illegal activities against children, will be blocked without warning, and their details may be provided to law enforcement agencies. Any editor promoting the idea that sex between adults and children is or should be acceptable, or pushing this view into Wikipedia articles will be blocked permanently and without warning. If it comes to the attention of Wikipedia editors that a user has taken part in, promoted or encouraged any illegal activity involving children elsewhere on the internet, they will be blocked permanently and without warning.
If you are aware of an editor breaching this policy, please report this by e-mail to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org.
The 'do not plaster Child Molester' all over the account advice should be attached.(talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem with this in that relations between 14 year olds and 18-19 year olds are quite common in parts of the world (Think Great Britain, Netherlands, Turkey). Somehow the world wide differences in age of consent and the difference in penalty levels of sex between minors and young adults needs to be taken into account. Otherwise it can become problematic. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that one of the issues is taking into account the laws of different countries. However, Wikipedia content is bound by State of Florida law, and the General Disclaimer advises people not to break any national law while they are using Wikipedia. In practice, the definition of child sexual abuse is broadly similar in most Western countries where the English language Wikipedia is read.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added the map outlining different ages of consent in one of the sections above. Obviously, we should not be going after a 16-year-old German editor who lets slip that he has (lawfully) slept with his 14-year-old girlfriend, but then that is not what the policy, as presently written, is about. Beyond that, I support the views expressed by Jimbo, Jehochman and Off2riorob here. --JN46612:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Nor should we go after a 17 year old Dutch editor who unlawfully slept with his 15 year old girlfriend. I know plenty of people who fall (used to fall) into that category and prosecution on those grounds is almost non-existent in the Netherlands. The more i read about this policy, the less I think that this is a good idea, especially the part where we exclude people who are/suffer from pedophilia, without advocating it or engaging in POV editing, or actually admitting to child abuse. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The law varies from country to country, but this does not prevent websites like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube from prohibiting unlawful conduct in their terms of service. We will just have to hammer away until a consensus wording can be found on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That sort of thing is often covered by Romeo and Juliet laws. Advocacy is I think the wrong reason if one wants to ban statements like 'I like little children' on a user page. I don't think disrepute is too convincing a case either. What it could fall over though is that it might be used to contact paedophiles, or other criminals if the policy is generalised like I think it should be, and so might be used to assist in crime. The minimum I'd want to see in such cases is no email or web link and the maximum would be that the user page was deleted with a warning to the editor not to publicize such information and a information message to the police. Advocacy can be dealt with separately and advocacy of crime sounds like a banning offence to me with full disclosure to the police. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I think it is important that we understand that there is a reason why this topic has been split into 3 parts in the professional world. Pedophilia as a decease/disorder, child abuse and "age of consent" issues, all with different levels of illegality, criminality and punishment. I think it is best to avoid the age of consent issue as much as possible, because it is so differently applied, regulated and defined throughout the world. You are out, as an editor, when you are advocating for pedophilia, engaging/admitting or advocating child abuse and when advocating for an age of consent below 10. Then we avoid the problems that really matter, while not trampling onto territory that is too contentious for us to regulate. We can add a note that some things are illegal to practice in the US under certain ages, but that due to worldwide cultural differences, you won't be immediately banned for it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A focus on those who target children is much clearer than a debate about ages of consent, which is why the version above refers to sex with children.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Different tack
As I have said before, half of the problem we are having here is that this conversation is too narrowly focused. Pedophilia (however that might be defined) is a hot-button issue, but it is only one of a number of social ills that wikipedia might have problems with. I suggest taking the focus here off of pedophilia specifically and writing something more general, like the following:
Wikipedia recognizes that children and adolescents are vulnerable to misinformation and are easily misled, with potentially dangerous consequences for their health and well-being. As a consequence, Wikipedia strictly prohibits article contributions, talk page discussions, external links, or other material which - in the considered opinion of the community - appear to constitute a specific threat to the safety of minors. The addition of any such material should be reported to administrators who may (at their discretion):
Remove the offending material.
Apply oversight to expunge it from page histories.
Temporarily or permanently block the contributing account.
Report individuals who present a clear and obvious threat to local authorities.
Because of the intense stigma attached to any behavior that threatens minors, care should be taken to restrict concerns to the edits made and not comment on the editors who make them. Administrators will determine if there is a behavioral problem that needs to be addressed; commenting on editors will merely lead to explosive disputes that can have no value. In particularly sensitive cases, the Arbitration Committee can be contacted off-line at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
Of course, this would mean we change the name of the page from 'Pedophilia' to 'Safety of Minors' or some such. what do you think? --Ludwigs215:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Support It's much more like what I'd suppose a policy should look like. I hadn't realized all the knee jerk and specificity had resulted from a recent Fox News article Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-06-28/In_the_news. I'd be in favour of the wording above as part of a general policy about potential criminal uses of Wikipedia. The current wording of this policy grates on me nastily. I had wondered where they got their statistics about paedophilia being a particularly bad problem whilst ignoring anything else that might happen. Well now I know, it's a Fox News invention. Scurrying around pandering to them isn't going to achieve anything in popularity terms with them, they'll just find another stick to send the ants scurrying around until such time as Wikipedia becomes another Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It didn't (start because of the Fox News article - which is old anyway). This has been the policy for years, and it is that anyone who self identifies (by their editing pov, their userpage, or by external report from a reliable source) is out the door with no return pass. This seems to be offending some people - I'm not sure why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it is a mistake to have WP:PED as a separate policy. It might make more sense to have an overall code of conduct, which is how most websites including Facebook, MySpace and YouTube operate. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As you've seen, its very hard to get certain groups to agree to any code of conduct not relating directly to content creation. The ongoing push to water down this provision is alarming, but nothing compared to what you would see if you tried to create a broader policy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've now had a better look at the evidence from that paedophile watch organization and I'm not sure how this policy affects the balance of good or harm. There must be dozens of anti paedophile organizations around the place and I'm sure they monitor Wikipedia articles and there are lots of anti-paedophilia editors here. Knowing who the editors who go to paedophile sites are and letting them have their identity here makes it easier tospot their edits. They seem to be asking for NPOV reliable sourced entries which put their POV, if I was countering them I'd prefer to know the surce of such entries rather than having the source hidden and then I coud spend more time in researching for other RS to refute what they say. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The vague wording above sounds intended to allow censorship of just about anything. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
not anything, only things that "appear to constitute a specific threat to the safety of minors." which is what we're after, right? --Ludwigs218:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the issue with certain kinds of activity (and I agree paedophile activity is not the only one, but it certainly is one) is that those engaging in same use the web to share information with each other, and to carry out activities that are illegal (sharing photos, grooming) as well as encouraging each other. Ludwigs version suggests that the only reason to oppose a paedophile editor is because a kid might think that paedophilia is OK really, which is the least of most people's worries.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It seemed to me to be the reason the anti paedophile organization was most worried about WIkipedia was both that and to affect public opinion in general. Contact between paedophiles on Wikipedia is not their worry as there are lots of other sites for that. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Elen, focus on content here. editors who use wikimedia servers for illegal activity will get themselves banned under core policy (pedophilia and distribution of child pornography are both illegal in the state of Florida); editors who use wikipedia as a social network site for these kinds of purposes will also find themselves banned by some outraged sysop. the only concern we have here is editors who try to misdirect minors into potentially dangerous activities by providing inappropriate links, or by spin-doctoring articles or talk page discussions into advocacy. so, prohibit material on the site that is a specific danger to minors; problem solved. --Ludwigs218:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Move to a subpage of wp:arbitration?
Are there not several policies/commonly accepted practices which are primarily documented on subpages of arbitration, whether on case pages or in some other format? Since the primary function of this page is to document the current practices of the arbitration committee, acting within its remit and by request of the WMF and Jimbo, why not move it to an arbitration subpage and leave it protected? The practice is not really open to dispute (or even "community dispute", though that isn't what we've seen so far on this page), so why permit endless debate on this talkpage as if it were? Nathan T 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the Arbcom is way outside its remit here, as are Jimbo and WMF. (if they weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion in the first place! ;-) ) But that's a discussion for another location.
What do you mean, Jimbo and the WMF are "outside of their remit"? If they chose to declare policy that is their decision. We can grumble about it and try to persuade them of the error of their ways, but they can and will make policy by fiat. Fences&Windows00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear! Let's not forget that dispite the given reasons for WP's existance, it is legally a privately owned website and whilst some of us may have been given extra abilities, we don't own it. If the person who made this website, or his seconds, decides to dictate a ruling, we can moan about it; but we have no right, or indeed, ability to change it. We can live with it, or not. fr33kman-simpleWP-08:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is actually "owned" by that segment of the public that contributes to it, and licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The webservers are owned by the Wikimedia foundation, but only with the express purpose of facilitating Wikipedia (and other projects). Jimmy Wale's current position for wmf and en.wp is in flux (it has been in flux for years, but things are going in a direction this year).
The largest power-base is the en.wikipedia community. Jimmy Wales (only) has influence as long as consensus on en.wp says he does. Versus the foundation we have a Right-To-Fork. So the organization structure is not a simple hierarchy. Treating it as such is unwise (especially when in doing so you're disenfranchising yourself!)
The power balance is balanced somewhat in our favor, but of course abusing one's powers is never a good idea. The correct procedure here is careful, intelligent negotiation between all parties involved. This is especially true seeing what's at stake today. I don't think it is wise for anyone to make autocratic statements.
I think whoever said WP:CONEXCEPT has the right of it here. At the end, this would come down either to a media issue or (G-d forbid) a legal issue, so it's no different to them issuing a fiat on copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally regard an argument on Wikipedia as clear evidence of any particular fact, except that Wikipedians love a good argument ;) Nathan T 00:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Does ArbCom counts as an "exception"? I don't see it listed in this WP:CONEXCEPT. All the players listed there are WMF people, aren't they? Wnt (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom isn't making policy here. It's already in the block policy, just not explicitly saying the word "paedophilia" in any form. And, perhaps you've forgotten, but the creation of paedophilia-related userboxes was ruled to be disruptive way back in 2006. Risker (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to nail down the theory here. I understand that the blocking policy includes blocks for harassment, and as I posted above, this theory explains many cases where self-professed pedophiles would be blocked, likely including the userboxes. I'm just not convinced that it blocks all such cases, or should, because Wikipedia has a mission to document all points of view. People like Yemen's Sheik Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, who is campaigning against his country's recent prohibition of child brides,[11] have points of view that are very strange and offensive to most of us, but we should still cover them and allow them to be expressed so we know what they are. We should have faith that knowledge will always be beneficial in the long run. I think that by covering such issues, in the end we will help bring about a lasting end to child sexual abuse.
Alternatively, if Jimbo Wales is citing WP:CONEXCEPT for this, it means that it's not in the consensus established blocking policy. Then we're at "Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status." Now, is this part of the "particularly"? I don't see the controversial aspects of this policy as addressing any real legal issue (nor copyright nor server load). If the "particularly" phrase doesn't matter, then we're down to a situation where Jimbo Wales is making policy unless he chooses to delegate a decision to the community. I thought Wikipedia had been designed to be more self-governing than that. Wnt (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, the problem with that notion is that someone has to babysit every edit they make, keep them off articles that young editors are most likely to read and/or edit, find a way in the software to prevent them from using "Email this user" (which I have been told is very difficult), and understand the subtle POV-pushing that is endemic to paedophile advocacy. Who wants to do that? In the past few weeks, two editors who have put a great deal of effort into controlling paedophile advocacy have been publicly accused of being paedophiles themselves, one of them on a national news service, because they have had the courage to try to keep Wikipedia a safe, educational environment to learn and share knowledge. Would you be willing to put your neck on the line like that? What would your employer say? Your spouse? Other editors who've done work in this area have been harassed on Wikipedia and in real life, directly related to this.That doesn't mean we don't include articles or reliably-sourced information about paedophilia and its subcategories, about paedophilia advocacy in the real world, as documented in reliable sources, or about people who are known paedophiles. There are no easy answers here. Risker (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy doesn't prevent pedophiles from editing or e-mailing; it only prevents them from telling us who they are (or if they do, they must start a new anonymous account and maybe request a new IP in their networks settings before logging in again). I think it must make us less secure, if anything. I didn't hear about these examples from the past two weeks, but certainly these editors deserve a broad community expression of support — who is behind this pattern of harassment?
I think that substantial progress has been made here already. For example, "advocating pedophilia", a rather mysterious phrase, is now explained as "advocating adult-child relationships". Still missing "sexual" there, but much more specific. Before this change it was not even clear whether disagreeing with the policy here would be punishable, and it showed that the community has some input. It has been clarified that this is Jimbo Wales exercising his prerogative as Founder, and does not indicate an open-ended power of ArbCom to create policy from scratch on its own. I think we could go just a small step further, and allow some people who disavow any criminal intent to share their personal perspective of this psychological problem, because I think it could be of broad benefit to society. No matter what bizarre practices people resort to, nothing will protect children until these people are routinely cured, and an open dialogue is important to promote research. Wnt (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
See now, you're proving my point. Just like in the real world outside our door, it is impossible to prevent every violation of law or custom. We can't stop people from following their own proclivities. We can just tell them "not here, folks". We're an encyclopedia, not a place for anyone to share their personal perspective on their psychological problems, regardless of what those psychological problems are. We routinely remove people from this project for this kind of soapboxing without thinking twice, because that's not the purpose of this site. I am sure you can find any number of sites that encourage paedophiles to "share their personal perspective", but none of them are encyclopedias. Risker (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
So far this entire page has generated more heat than light, and has also wandered off into areas of wikipolitics that have little to do with the matter in hand. WP:PED is nothing new, because all it does is to restate the way that this situation has been dealt with in the past.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
PED may well have been the way the problem has been dealt with for years but the issue here is whether or not there is community support for that action. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed what this discussion is about, and it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is a complex system of checks and balances, among which are WP:CONEXCEPT and the power of ArbCom to interpret on a case by case basis what constitutes disruption, etc. We aren't going to take a vote that says it is ok to self-identify as a pedophile and edit here. That's just not the way Wikipedia has ever functioned.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The practice and advocacy of "pedophilia" (child sexual abuse) on the English Wikipedia are strictly prohibited. Editors who use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with children, who advocate adult-child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.
OK, I accept that a lot of this boils down to whether WP:CONEXCEPT applies here. The problem is that pedophilia is such a legal, ethical and media hot potato that a bitter debate about it could do more harm than good. As pointed out elsewhere on this page, we should not give the media trolls any new sticks with which to beat Wikipedia. I can't see much wrong with the wording of WP:PED, and don't want to see an endless debate over the policy issues it raises.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to know, am I editing a website that the users support the above statement or am I editing a website that has a pedophile problem? Off2riorob (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Users have been indef blocked in the past for self-identifying or advocating pedophilia. Whether this indicates a problem is harder to say, because any site that allows people to sign up for an account at will risks all forms of disruptive editing. The debate should not be turned into a battle along the lines of "you are either with us or against us", as this would go against the spirit of consensus building.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Now now. While any man who threatened my kids would find himself wearing his genitalia as neck-jewellery, even I can see that the above is heading into McCarthy territory.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am being a bit of a liberal fascist about this and the subject matter is getting to me. I will take this page of my watchlist for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
NPOV does not require the acceptance of advocacy
"Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that all viewpoints about these issues should be welcome," - this is not true at all, anymore than it requires us to accept hate speech of any kind. "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy demands particular care be taken to prevent the pushing of agendas, and users may be blocked for advocacy" is more relevant and actually is true.
There is no idea that Wikipedia has to accept NeoNazis in order to write neutrally about the holocaust, because it is false. A lot of this discussion is running over very old ground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. As someone has now come out above with the requirement to take the Loyal Oath, perhaps its time to close this down, even if it means deleting the page (which will not affect the policy). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Also agreed, the debate has gone off at a tangent and reignited old arguments about the role of Jimbo and ArbCom in policy making. It's a pity that a sensible page like WP:PED has been fully protected to prevent edit warring, when it says nothing that would go against the letter or spirit of Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've little doubt that if WP:PROCESS had been followed this would have gone just fine. Honestly, starting over in a few weeks from scratch would probably work. My only substantive (not process) concern at this point is that I want to be sure we define our terms well (in particular that this isn't designed to target two 15 year-olds). Hobit (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually Hobit, I'm not sure that it would. There are two very clear versions of what people would like to see as policy formed up on this page. One says 'anyone identified as a paedophile will be blocked permanently and without warning', the other says something vastly different. I think the debate would be horrendous, there would be blood on the carpet, people will end up blocked, people will demand that other people state publically that they are not paedophiles, and at the end of it, the outcome would still be 'anyone identified as a paedophile will be blocked permanently and without warning'.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a massive differĪence between blocking people for advocacy on Wikipedia and blocking people because of who they self-identify as. The idea behind this policy is ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would someone self identify? Why would they do that? Given the stigma attached, why wouldn't the individual just keep quiet. I think that's the question. For what reason would someone advertise that they are a paedophile? I do take Wnt's point that if someone says 'I used to have those feelings, can I add some insight into the treatment I had', then you might want to cut slack. But if someone (and I've seen it done - not on Wikipedia, I hasten to add) posts "I have sex with six year olds"...what is their actual motive in doing this. It's not the same as 'are you now or have you ever been a Communist' This isn't a belief system - it's tied to a set of activities that most societies have deemed illegal. So these people are not saying 'I hold this belief', they are saying 'I have a desire to perform these illegal acts'--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Because living in denial is hardly the most healthy or intellectually fulfilling way to live? Equally, there is a huge stigma attached to my political views where I am, but I freely self-identify. Also, you're failing to recognise the massive difference between a paedophile and a child abuser. A paedophile has not necessarily done anything ethically wrong or illegal under western legal systems. While you do not recognise the difference (not to mention that, as you say, being a paedophile is in no way a choice) there is no way we can possibly have anything resembling a reasoned debate on this issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah now, you see, I don't believe that being a paedophile is in no way a choice. In fact, I'm the one who has introduced evidence (anecdotal, I agree) that child sex abuse can be a crime of opportunity or motivated by whatever motivates soldiers to use rape as a terror weapon, or may even be a response to exposure to child porn. And I'll say it again - why would you self identify as a paedophile on Wikipedia if it was not that you wanted to expand on your feelings, experiences, motivations, etc. Is it not rather that the reason for sticking one's head above the parapet is that one feels that Wikipedia is a safe environment, where one can 'set the record straight' about how different paedophiles are to sex criminals.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Peadophiles are not necessarily child sex abusers and child sex abusers are not necessarily paedophiles. If you say differently, you're simply wrong. (If you were agreeing with me, as your "evidence" would actually suggest, I think you muddled your double negatives.) Equally, a sadist is not necessarily a rapist, and a rapist is not necessarily a sadist. Your next argument is a little bit ridiculous; you're basically saying "why would someone self-identify as x, if they did not want to expand on your feelings, experiences, motivations". Well, let's find out- you self identify as female. Have you come here to push the female perspective? If so, I'll quite happily block you as a POV-pusher. If not, then you can appreciate that someone may self-identify as something on Wikipedia for any number of perfectly legitimate reasons... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Milburn, we're on opposite sides of the church here. I can't think of a single legitimate reason to self identify as a paedophile, as far as I can see anyone who uses that label is a potential - if not an actual - child abuser, and comparison with self identification as female, a mother, older, from the UK or a local government officer are all irrelevant, because none of these identify intimately with illegal activity. 'Why would anyone self identify as an Al-Quaeda terrorist' is a far better example, if you are searching for one. And the only reason would be to promote their world view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. It is not illegal to be a paedophile. Your comparison is a bad one because all terrorists engage in illegal acts, or at least support them, so that would be the equivilent of self-identifying as a child abuser- very different from a paedophile. A better example would be self identifying as an English nationalist- the interests of an English nationalist are unsavoury to the majority of people, but they are not doing anything illegal in their self-identification. Yes, some of them may commit illegal acts related to their interests. However, not every hate crime in the UK is from an English nationalist. Again, you need to recognise that there is a difference between a paedophile and a child abuser, just as there is a difference between an English nationalist and an English person who commits acts of racial violence. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Milburn, don't take this the wrong way, but I seriously recommend that you shut up before you find you've dug a hole for yourself. I'm not going to argue with you, because every one of your replies just seems to me to be digging you in deeper. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Do let me know what's wrong with what I'm saying. I've been cursed with this horrible affliction called "intellectual honesty"- if you point out why I am wrong, I will recognise the fact. You seem to be incapable to recognise fairly simple distinctions between two loosely related groups. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is that certain forms of self-identification make people very uncomfortable, and are somewhat pointless. Consider: "I'm a secret nose-picker. I try really hard to resist it, but you might consider avoiding touching any chair I've sat on recently." Or to borrow an example given earlier: "I'm currently struggling against a desire to pursue and eat J Milburn, who I imagine might taste delicious with some fava beans and a nice chianti." We're in a public space on Wikipedia, and we should respect its cultural norms. Gently pushing against them is a good thing. Violating them to the point where your readers feel nauseous is going to see you excluded. SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Milburn, this is the Wikisposure entry for a self-identified paedophile who claims he has never committed an offence with an actual child (can't claim he has never committed an offence against a child, as he has admitted to regularly viewing child porn, he just doesn't see child porn as harmful to the children involved). This is the reality. If, somehow, you happen to know some unfortunate person who views his attraction to children with complete abhorrence, and who has never acted in any way on their feelings (and that includes viewing porn), and who self-identifies as someone struggling with his sexuality in this way, I might share your concern. Never seen one yet myself. Every example of self-identification has come with some level of excuse-making, obfuscation, arguing that it's really OK, that one day society will accept this, that at one time society used to accept this, that objecting to paedophilia is a form of discrimination, or the purview of the Moral Right (Left, Centre, Orthodox, Catholic, or whatever), that its OK to describe fantasies, that they have a right to put their case, and so on. In short, I don't think it is possible to just say 'I am a paedophile' and leave it at that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
At Milburn (still AGF-ing, and assuming that Minor 4ths comment below is not aimed at you). Here's the Wikisposure entry for someone advancing quite strongly the argument that paedophilia is different to child abuse [12]. "paedophiles (like myself) never torture anyone, get your facts straight. Being angry at child mollestors who engage in unconsensual rape of minors is fully understandable, and I'd kill any of them myself. Wanting to kill someone for a sexual orientation they didn't choose though, but rather have been burdened with then constantly barraged with hatred from society for a crime they haven't and likely wouldn't commit, is purely sensless stupidity." is what he said. In August 2007 his attempts to start a career working with children was mercifully put on ice when he was convicted of 21 offences involving child pornography. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not deny that there are plenty of paedophiles who do horrific things, plenty of paedophiles who, ethically, are disgusting people. I get the distinct impression, Elen, that that is what you believe I am saying. All I have said from the start is that it is not fair to make the assumption that because someone is a paedophile, that they are a child abuser, or that they have (or will) do anything wrong, any more than anyone else. So far as I am aware, I don't know any paedophiles. For what it's worth, I don't think I want to; I probably share the instinctive aversion that plenty of people express (equally, people share aversions to all sorts of things; it can hardly be considered an ethical argument). I'm seeing the shrill moral panic that is so typical of this issue; people need to recognise that there is a difference between the paedophile and the child abuser, as I have said, many times. What the self-identified paedophile you quoted said is wrong, we can all recognise that, as we all know that there are paedophiles who abuse children in various ways. However, some of what he says is right- those who abuse children do so for all kinds of reasons, not just paedophilia. There is no way to defend that. That is not at issue here- no one is trying to justify child abuse. However, all too many people seem to have entered this discussion saying "paedophilia is wrong, mmm-kay" and that view simply doesn't make any sense. I appreciate that I may be coming across as a philosopher trying to address a "real" issue, and no doubt there are plenty who think that these kind of arguments have no place in the "real" world. All I'm trying to do is present a coherent position consistent with the way things are on Wikipedia and in the wider world. J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Milburn, this isn't some abstract concept. You know how anorexia makes you starve yourself to death? It even leads the sufferer to believe that they are fat, when they are actually starving to death? Well, if paedophilia is a condition, then it must have the same distorting effect, because while I agree that there are paedophiles who don't actually commit violent attacks on children, they still think that what they do is OK, just misunderstood by society. Here is another Wikisposure profile. This guy may never have actually had penetrative sex with one of his 'young friends' (at the very least, he's covered his tracks well), but would you want him near your kids? Note the way he views the mother of his 11 yo victim young friend - according to him, she's the twisted one for wanting to keep her son away from him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. There aren't two kinds of reasoning- one for "abstract concepts" and one for "things Elen knows best about". Whether this is an "abstract concept" or not, the way to work out how what is best is to engage in rational discourse... Your preaching demonstrates nothing, and your examples are demonstrating nothing because we both agree that child abusers exist. Move on. J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
What in hell is that supposed to mean? Who the fuck do you think you are? You're really fucking intent on making this personal, aren't you? J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. I have seen your comment on my talkpage, but prefer to respond here. By dictionary definition (since you seem fond of this) you are engaged in "the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal", to wit that self identified paedophiles should be acceptable on Wikipedia because paedophiles are not the same as child molesters.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You know precisely what you're saying, and it's not that. Congratufuckinglations; you've done enough to bully me out of this discussion. I hope you're pleased with yourself. I feel physically ill, I'm deeply offended and I've lost considerable faith in Wikipedia. I hope you end up blocked, and I hope I never have to deal with you again. You can have the last word, if that means anything to you, I'm going. J Milburn (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Elen, that Wikisposure link is interesting - it goes to show that Wikipedia could adopt a much more liberal attitude about WP:BLP without being shut down by lawsuits. But this Tyciol looks like a kid himself. They say he's a pedophile because they say he's 20 and he'd sleep with a 14-year-old. How do we know he didn't inflate his age a few years to get on some adult chat sites?
Whether you or I like it or not (and I have known to say very nasty things about Islam on this basis, under other circumstances) the fact remains that as shown on that map of age of consent, there are all kinds of views worldwide about pedophilia. Some countries don't even have an age of consent and hand over child brides to dirty old men. I was amazed to see on it that even in Mexico it is apparently legal to go after 12-year-olds, which certainly puts the Hollywood glorification of trips into Mexico for prostitutes in a whole new light.
For an impartial encyclopedia, the right thing to do remains to allow editors to express their point of view, even if it seems very wrong to our culture. Wnt (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As a page that documents current WikiMedia practice, I suggest it be moved off WikiPedia altogether. (We can link to where it gets moved.) This discussion is doing more harm than good, as it is not up for debate if WikiMedia management will continue to behave as it has for years regarding this subject. Further, do we really want to hash out whether we should ban advocates of some forms of child sex organ mutilation like circumcision and other sensitive cultural practices on a policy page? Please move debates to article talk pages where they belong. Let's be practical. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The only "harm" it is doing is from those who want to wikilawyer over it. We all know what it means. If you advocate it, you're banned. It's that simple. This isn't an act of congress or a court ruling where you need five pages of documentation over the definition of "is". --B (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think if it had been phrased like that I'd have had no problems. However 'advocate' has turned into wikilanguage where if you say you have some feelings or do something you are advocating it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be something about people who say something like that as well but exactly what is 'advocacy' if it isn't the standard meaning? Aslo having looking at why they want it I'm not altogether convinced this is the bast way of achieving a result or best for the encyclopaedia, I believe that mechanisms should be in place to achieve a desired result in improving the encyclopaedia rather than as a feel good factor so one should look at what the problem is and think what various ways of dealing with the problem would do in practice. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Simple solution
Look, we move this stuff to WP:BLOCK, OK? Assuming what this page says is a true representation of what actually happens, there's nothing we can do about it (there are obvious philosophical objections, but that discussion - if anyone thinks it worth continuing - can continue at WT:BLOCK). But we don't need a whole new policy page for it (every new policy page means another place where what is sometimes taken to be authoritative documentation of Wikipedia practice can be modified without community oversight - that's my objection to the making of this page policy); and certainly WP:BLOCK is incomplete if this page is true and the info isn't mentioned on WP:BLOCK. Then we can make WP:Pedophilia (or however we decide to name it) into an informative page that we can show to the media and to people with actual problems to report. Does anyone have any actual problem with that?--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Including it in block is fine by me. I'm fine with ejecting proponents of child sex by the side door - my only concern was that there not be an immediate public statement, as it is very difficult for all parties to find a way back if there was a mistake. I'm not sure by this stage moving it would help - although deleting this damn page might. I'm beginning to see battle lines drawn. I hope not. But I would think it a good thing if we had a page on Wikipedia:Use Wikipedia safely. Advice for junior editors, parents and teachers that included all the usual interweb safety stuff.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody ever gets blocked on Wikipedia for being a pedophile, or even "advocating" it, because the legal risks are too great. You can draw your own conclusions from users in the block log who were blocked for unspecified "legal reasons". This is one of the reasons why this page is degenerating into a phoney war. As Elen correctly put it, child sex proponents are shown the side door, because a public statement would be too risky if there was a mistake. This should not prevent Wikipedia from offering advice on online safety, or stating that it is policy to block all forms of disruptive editing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I'd like a bit more support for censorship in Wikipedia. Not in the sense of affecting the contents of the articles but for allowing schools or parents to let it be used but control what is seen by having tags on articles, sections of articles or media. In general I'd like ways for instance for creationists to defend themselves from the scientific facts if they really want to. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Attempts to Normalize Pedophilia
Pro-pedophilia activists push their agenda in subtle ways to normalize views towards tolerance of deviant sexual exploitation of children -- as if it's just an alternative lifestyle. It is happening on this very page today by casting pedophiles as victims of persecution and injustice for "being", by displays of fake moral outrage over "intolerance." This is the danger right here in our midst. If you're a pedophile and you want to edit here, keep it to yourself and don't try to normalize the community's view towards acceptance of deviant sexual desires, thoughts, and agendas. It is dangerous and harmful and intellectually dishonest to frame pedophilia as a freedom of expression issue or a sexual orientation issue or a disability issue. Do not try to raise pedophiles to some kind of protected class. Every time someone even engages in the discussion with a pedophile apologist, it gives a bit of legitimacy to the agenda. Please stop!! Minor4th• talk00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not going to win you too many chums in this debate, but you'll get a round of applause from me. It's the reason this 'discussion' is going nowhere, and someone wise ought to delete both the page and talkpage, so the policy can go back to working in the background. It's what has happened the last few times. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
How about a little trust in consensus? Why are you so quick to try and work around the editors on Wikipedia? Are they really so deserving of respect? What kind of opinion do you have of democracy and the Western world? It would all be better if you were in charge and did things in secret? Please no more of this we know best. Dmcq (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Because just about the only ones left in this debate are the apologists. And me. And I'm having the world's most stupid argument with one of them (above - not you). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 4 July 201ī0 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I really don't understand where you're coming from, and I'm pretty certain that some of the other people currently on this page are viewing you as a paedophile (hence the earlier advice to stop digging). You seem to have this rosy view that there is an abstract thing called paedophilia, that is not actually connected to having sex with children - as if one could be an anorexic but continue to eat normally and not worry about one's weight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous. If you're getting that impression, you really need to read my posts again. Being a child abuser and being a paedophile are different things; that's a simple matter for dictionary definitions. Yes, some people are both, most people are neither, some are one, some are the other. I'm not a sociologist, I don't know numbers. All I'm saying is that they are different things. For what it's worth, I really fucking resent being called an apologist- I am not defending paedophilia, or child abuse, or anything related to either. If you claim that I am, not only are you a liar (or an idiot), but you're being damn-near libellous. Let's not make this personal. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Milburn, if you don't know any paedophiles, how do you know with such absolute certainty that there exists a class of paedophile which never acts on its sexual attraction to children? Why do you keep insisting so, well, insistently that such people exist?Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If they did, why on earth would they ever tell anyone? Why reveal it if it is not something that you ever act upon. Why risk the spotlight, the opprobrium, the police? Which brings us back to the starting point of this debate. What possible legitimate reason could someone have for coming onto Wikipedia and announcing that they are a paedophile, given that there are people like me around who will call for them to be blocked on sight.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
People self-identify as all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I'm not a psychologist, I have no idea what their motivation may be. J Milburn (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You are not the only supporter of Minor 4th, Elen of the Roads. I suspect that others are doing what Minor 4th has requested, and just stopping. There is indeed a grave risk, in my opinion, too, that to argue with an apparent apologist of any group, gives the process legitimacy that then may ooze into the area of acceptance of the philosophy. The point has been clearly made as to what the policy is. It is unlikely in the extreme that anything said here will change that policy. There may be a time and a place for a change but it is not here or now. Those who argue otherwise have, I think, an unrealistic view of their power to effect (or even affect) policy in this specific matter. Bielle (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As I commented above, the policy has already changed considerably in the past five days.[13] The only point of dispute left concerns the pedophile self-identification issue. On that, I wish both sides would please show more civility - we don't need people to be dubbed apologists or told that "other people" think they're pedophiles, nor reams of vulgarity, nor "almost" legal threats about "almost" libellious comments. This is a legitimate, ongoing, and useful policy discussion that has nearly accomplished its purpose and will lead to a more intelligent policy and a a better understanding of Wikipedia's methods of making policy. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy has not changed at all, nor will it. This is an opportunity for the community to discuss the policy and maybe get on board with it in a more transparent way, but irrespective of what this page says the policy has already been clearly articulated by Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner. If you want a written policy to point to, quote them on the article page and be done with it. The pedophile self-identification issue is not up for debate or community approval. It's policy and will remain policy. I don't mean to be rude to you, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the community can override this policy or create a different policy and that is simply not the case. Minor4th• talk04:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor4th: no offense to you, or to Jimbo, or to Sue Gardner (I have no idea who that is, though I assume she is someone important), but policy - in the absence of legal restrictions imposed by the foundation - is determined by broad consensus among wikipedia editors. I think that you are correct in assuming that there is a broad consensus among wikipedia editors that we do not as a project want to do anything that allows 'pedophilic advocacy', but I think you are incorrect in assuming that this particular page represents the solution that most editors would agree to. since we have no reasonable evidence one way or the other, we should sensibly (assume the null hypothesis) assert that there is no consensus for this page as policy, and try (a) to build such a policy consensus for this page, or (b) build a page that achieves policy consensus. We have plenty of time to do so - there is no pressing urgency for this decision, despite Fox News' dire predictions of the immanent end of the world at Wikipedia's hands. Do you understand me? so - let's remove the policy tag, go through the mostly excellent discussions that have arisen from this (here and elsewhere) and then let's craft a policy on this issue that will find consensus and do wikipedia proud. --Ludwigs205:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, no offense to you either, but this is one of those instances where legal implications are triggered, and the foundation has already made policy in response to the legal ramifications. Jimbo has said quite clearly that it won't change even if there is some kind of overwhelming consensus to the contrary. I have made no such assumption or argument in favor of this page representing policy, as it is an exercise in futility other than as an opportunity to discuss what the policy already is and put it in writing if that makes people more comfortable. The policy as stated, that will not be overcome by consensus to the contrary: Zero-tolerance for advocacy of pedophilia, and pedophiles who self-identify will be blocked on sight. Minor4th• talk07:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor4th, you seem to think we are disagreeing about something different than we are actually disagreeing about. I have no interest in trying to overturn foundation policy about illegal activities and overt pedophile behavior - these are good things to my mind, and even if we could overturn them I wouldn't want to. However, that has nothing to do with the elevation of this page to policy. This page does not reflect foundation policy, but instead reflects an effort to expand that policy in directions that cannot be rationally enforced. It's an invitation to hysteria. Everybody is all hyped up about it for some reason, and wants to do something and do it now even though they are not exactly sure what the problem is, and that's just a stupid way to write policy.
I swear, this is the most idiotically designed political system I have ever seen (and I've studied the US congress).
But this is not something you will be of a mind to reflect on (which I can say with confidence, because I've never run across anyone on wikipedia who is of a mind to reflect on things like this, at least no once they get their goat up), so I'll leave you to have at it. it's really not worth worrying about in the short term, and with luck the heat will die off in a couple of months and someone sensible will edit it into something reasonable. --Ludwigs215:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in this debate, but I thought I would point out that one of Elen's comments above is somewhat misinformed: "You seem to have this rosy view that there is an abstract thing called paedophilia, that is not actually connected to having sex with children". That's not a "rosy view" at all, it's pure hard fact; paedophilia should not be confused with sexual acts with a minor, since while generally everyone who commits sexual acts with a minor is a paedophile, the inverse is not true: not all paedophiles ever break the law, and being a paedophile is not illegal since we do not live in 1984 and have no thought-police. Paedophilia means to be sexually attracted to children, but does not necessarily mean commiting a sexual offence on that basis. That's all I have to say on this discussion since it seems to be a bit of a nail-and-tooth-fest in here. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the way I've heard the term used. Most parents I know would refer to an adult as likely being a paedophile for appearing to be unhealthily interested in their children, long before it escalated to anything as sinister as a form of sexual assault; I seriously doubt anyone would say that an individual who is sexually excited by children is not a paedophile because they've never commit a criminal offence, so the common usage matches the strict definition, I believe. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]08:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Since practically our entire knowledge of pedophiles comes from those who practice it - how else would we have found out? - I doubt this. As an example, Google 'pedophile priests'. Every link is about priests who have practised this. Not about priests who have harboured such urges or desires safely in their hearts alone. Can you give me examples of 'how you have heard the term used'? 86.164.209.246 (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly the point though: how would you know? People are only publicly called paedophiles if there is evidence that they have commited a sexual offence against a minor, because otherwise it would be defamation; I've certainly heard many parents discuss who they think might be a paedophile without basing it on their actual actions, however; it's just not an official or public claim because there's no evidence. Since paedophilia is really a feeling, claims can only be made based on actions; that doesn't change the fact that paedophilia itself is actually the attraction to children, and one can be a paedophile without ever committing an illegal act. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As an example, as I mentioned above, I've heard parents voice their suspicion that an individual is a paedophile because the individual has shown unhealthy interest in their children, such as watching them in a public place, giving them gifts, etc., but these actions aren't illegal and do not themselves demonstrate "acting on paedophilia". However, such an individual may' or may not be a paedophile, as an individual who is sexually attracted to children. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]09:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point. If you Google 'pedophile priests', it is clear that the term, as used there, signifies the practice. See also the definition here, indeed see the Wikipedia article pedophilia. Both of these sources acknowledge that the word has different senses. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
See also the links that turn up when you Google 'pedophile accusations' [14]. It says "Brazil priest, 83, detained after pedophilia accusations". Were the accusations that the priest had feelings of a certain kind? No. As the article goes on to say "a congressional hearing produced allegations he molested boys as young as 12". You might object that this is the wrong sense of the word. I might agree. My point is that this is a common use of the word. Whether it is a common misuse is beside the point. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I addressed your point, and since official accusations made will be legal accusations, it stands to reason that the allegations are going to refer to crimes: paedophilia is not a crime; sexual assault on children, possession of child pornography, these are crimes. These crimes are referred to as paedophilia because that is the motive of the crime; that doesn't change the fact that if you refer to someone as a paedophile however, you are claiming that they are sexually attracted to children, and unless you add legal claims, you are not specifically claiming that they have sexually assaulted a child. As I stated at the start I have no intention of being drawn into a long discussion here, so I'm going to leave it at that. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. If someone is 'accused of pedophilia' they are not being accused of having certain feelings. It is almost impossible to prove the existence of feelings. The accusations (in this sense) refer to specific practices. In any case it is clear that the meaning of the word is far from certain. See my support for the changed wording below. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's another example. "Scottish Gay Rights Activists Found Guilty of Pedophilia Sentenced to Life Imprisonment" [15]. As the writer was using the term, he means an act or practice, not a feeling. I'm afraid you are wrong, in a way that is important to this discussion. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I read what you said, and very carefully. But I didn't understand your argument. You said that allegations refer to crimes. Therefore an 'allegation of paedophilia' is an allegation of a crime. But then you said paedophilia is not a crime. You seemed to be contradicting yourself. I'm sorry you see no point in continuing the discussion - it is an important issue in defining policy, when a clear understanding of terms is important. I am merely saying that, as many people use the term (as in 'guilty of pedophilia') they mean the practice, not the feeling. Surely that is obvious? 86.164.209.246 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
How do we define 'advocacy' here?
This is a difficult one. PPA's generally never admit to advocating such a thing. They come up with all sorts of other arguments. For example, that 'pedophilia' does not mean any specific practice, but is an orientation, which is in fact true according to the medical definition, although in common use the word means 'child molestation' (I notice J Milburn has already come up with that argument above). Or they say that they are 100% against child abuse (because in their mind it is possible to have a 'loving' relationship with a child which is not abusive). Or they write endless articles on historical figures who may or may not have been pedophiles (there was a huge edit war a few years ago over the Jules Verne article for instance). There is a risk now that anyone approaching these articles with a genuinely neutral point of view, presenting facts consistent with modern scientific research, may get a secret block, in cases where the scientific evidence did genuinely support one of the many arguments used by PPA's. I don't know what the solution is. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
While you've all been arguing, I've been doing something useful
Agree, the debate over WP:PED turned into an unnecessary shin kicking festival. There is enough here to outline what the policies are, without making a meal over them.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording a bit according to the statements that have recently been made by Jimbo on the subject. Feel free to revert or further edit:
Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate relationships with children, who advocate adult-child relationships or child sexual abuse, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. Reports of users engaging in such conduct should be made to Arbitration Committee for further action and should not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment or consensus. When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries and disable the editor's ability to edit his talk page as well as his access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked user that any appeals or further discussion may only be addressed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Child protection.
If a topic is intrinsically controversial, it is better to have a separate page, with specific edit-protection, than to block a larger page against editing, due to fears the controversial section might get changed. If the concern is the title ("WP:Pedophilia"), then I suggest to move-rename that page to a less intense title, but do not combine it (inside a broader page) in hopes of concealing a controversial topic. Each controversy needs to be discussed, and page-protected, depending on its own specific issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It should be fairly uncontroversial to rename WP:PED. "Pedophilia" is an emotive term, and has a range of legal and medical definitions. The real issue here is preventing disruptive editing that would lead to a block.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Supprt I had a look at the pages and they look much better I think. They don't twist the language and they are at the appropriate level of specificity versus non-specificity to allow sensible decisions to be made in corner cases. There are very few details about sensitive handling of data, secure communication, monitoring and statistics of decisions and all that sort of thing one needs when doing things where individual cases can't be openly discussed, I believe this is correct as this is a general conduct policy but those matters should all have another administrator policy about them. Dmcq (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked over this section and its propositions yet, but I believe "child protection" is much more specific, and more importantly, much more important than "denouncing paedophilia". Paedophilia is far too vague and the focus needs to be on protecting children from physical, mental, or emotional harm, not on the finer points of what makes a paedophile a paedophile. I am firmly against any advocacy which could directly or indirectly lead to any sort of harm to any child, anywhere, and I hope that the community supports this view. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]09:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. Wording could use some help, but I think that makes more sense. I've changed the wording there (being bold) and suggested a change at the child protection page. Hobit (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. The word 'pedophile' has a variety of conflicting meanings. This is clearer. Can there be a special email hotline that is clearly advertised on the talk pages of sensitive articles? arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org is mostly spam and is ignored by the arbitration committee, as far as I can tell (I will test it later today). 86.164.209.246 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Whatever its provenance, this is existing policy, and from the discussion above it seems that there is not a strong consensus to change it further. This approach appears to place this policy under the realm of editor consensus and clearly avoids political censorship. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - While I appreciate the intent and the effort, I am concerned that rolling this into the blocking policy will have two unfortunate side effects: visibility of this policy to the outside world and news media; and insertion of what is a WMF decreed policy into a community derived policy. Although many people have been dismissive of certain news outlets, it is clear that a recent article has prompted the formation of this written policy - it would be wise to forestall future similar reporting both by making this policy visible and by acting on it in a consistent and project-wide manner. People unfamiliar with Wikipedia will understand (and find) a policy entitled WP:PEDOPHILIA (or WP:PAEDOPHILIA) but a subsection of a larger policy entitled "Child protection issues" can be more easily missed or misunderstood. Mixing this WMF policy with community policy will inevitably lead to more argument and rehashing of the discussions on this page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:PED is a non-policy policy, a Catch-22 situation. By its own wording, nobody is ever going to get blocked per WP:PED, because the risk of triggering a lawsuit is too great. As stated previously, any policy based on the word "pedophilia" is unsatisfactory, because it has a range of legal and medical definitions that are beyond the scope of the layman. Avoiding rehashing WP:CONEXCEPT arguments is another top priority here, which is why the suggestions above are helpful.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that editors have been and will continue to be blocked for violating this "long-standing" policy. I'm not sure which "suggestions" you mean. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify, Carbuncle. You don't apparently disagree with the wording. It's the location that you have a problem with. Is that what you mean? 86.164.209.246 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c):::I have no substantial disagreement with the wording other than the title. While I agree that there is cause for argument about the usage of the term "paedophilia" I am more concerned about the "optics". Being able to point to this page, with this title, will go a long way to defusing any future scaremongering by the news media (assuming, of course, that the policy is consistently and carefully applied). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
We're going round in circles on this. Having a page title and policy with the word "Pedophilia" is too difficult to enforce on legal grounds. The issue here is workable Wikipedia policy, not how Fox News will react.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In what way does the word "paedophilia" itself need to be enforced "on legal grounds"? Editors can be blocked for any reason, or no reason at all, based on the whim of the WMF who control this website. I believe that the block log generally contains a warning not to unblock without contacting ARBCOM and does not use the word paedophilia or even allude to to it. We're not going around in circles here, you're simply stating things that are demonstrably incorrect. While I'm certainly not here to support the viewpoint of Fox News, I believe the substance of that article is largely correct. Whatever the title or wording ends up as, it is acting on this policy that will make the difference to future news reports. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Support this reasoned defusion of the issue at hand. The goals of the practice, as I see it [assuming good faith], are [a] protecting child contributors and [b] maintaining the integrity of our content in this topic area [and by extension protecting child users of that content]. As the proposal maintains, these twin goals are best achieved through special cases of the existing conduct and content policies, WP:BLOCK and WP:NPOV respectively. Beyond this, the private beliefs and inclinations of volunteers are neither relevant to the issue, nor within the moral authority of us as an educational project to rule over. Pandering to the hysterical section of the media in the vain hope of courting positive spin or escaping scrutiny is not, and should not be a guiding influence on our community norms. In the current social climate of the Anglosphere, focusing on the highly-contested button-pushing topic of paedophilia serves only to incite collaborative, legal and moral panic. We would do well to attend to what we would seek to protect, not that which we might seek to demonise; thank you Kotniski for this productive intervention. Skomorokh17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Editing a fully-protected page
04-July-10: When there seems to be a need to fully-protect a page still under development, then please consider: roll out of unfinished sections as transcluded templates, to allow some freedom of editing, so that parts of a fully-protected page can still be changed (or edited to tag-link them to talk-page topics). The semi-protected templates will allow some further modification (of just those sections), even though the bulk of the page would be locked against update. The most obvious need to change a section would be to insert a tag-box warning which directly links to a specific talk-page #topic for focused discussion (about that particular section). In fact, an unprotected template could be just the notice that the (protected) sections are being debated, showing a link to talk-page #topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Handling of mistakes or pedophile jokes
04-July-2010: The proposed policy should directly address issues about mistakes and jokes misconstrued as accusations or self-identification:
allow jokes to be made about pedophilia or adult-child events;
provide steps to handle mistaken notions or false accusations.
For example, if someone writes a joke, "He likes the old bicycles with large pedals: he is a major *pedophile*" then that needs to be understood, as being NOT an accusation but rather humor, by admins who "no speaka da english 2 good". Specifically, many people are unaware of common jokes in English cultures: such as "You're pulling my leg" is not a physical assault. Because this is a separate page, there is ample room to include some classic jokes that non-English-speaking people might not realize are attempts at comedy.
Similarly, the policy page needs to address the inverse (or opposite) of the situation, when someone, actually, did NOT accuse or did NOT self-identify. The inverse situations need to be specified, so that people, in a hurry, would know how to handle those situations, to defuse a situation which was judged by mistake. It is important that WP policies not be used, everyday, as a basis for a witchhunt against other users. So, always consider the inverse situation, where false ideas are being promoted. The policy must specifically address how false accusations are handled, such as in the Code of Hammurabi: "anyone caught making false accusations will receive the punishment intended for the crime". Even 3,700 years ago, it was apparent that people could gain power by making false accusations, and that needs to be addressed, in the policy, directly. For example, consider when someone uses the same IP address to edit/insert a fake "self-ID" message. People are WP:Gaming the system by accusing other users of every conceivable vio, hence they are generating a frivilous-ANI workload. Prevent policies from being used for witchhunts. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Since these blocks will be handled by a small group of people (i.e., ARBCOM) and likely after some discussion, this seems wholly unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirect this page now
Thanks all for the positive reaction to my reorganization as desribed above; I'm leaving this subject for now, hopefully the unnecessary drama is now over and people can continue to tweak the various pages appropriately. As my parting shot, however, I suggest this page be immediately turned into a redirect to WP:Child protection. Reasons: (1) discussion so far seems to indicate people are in favour of such an end solution; (2) it's easily reversible if the final decision is different; (3) the purposes and content of this page are now fully and better served by the other pages; (4) and most urgently: it's possibly going to be seized upon by the media either that Wikipedia is acknowledging it has a pedophilia problem or that there is dispute about whether child abusers should be allowed on Wikipedia. I therefore make the following request:
{{editprotected}}
Replace the page with a redirect to Wikipedia:Child protection (reasoning just above the notice).--Kotniski (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, this isn't a community-derived policy. It has been decreed by Jimbo Wales and the WMF (although I am awaiting a clear acknowledgement from the latter). Inserting it into the midst of a community-derived policy only invites editors to continue this debate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, merge as needed and redirect. Enough soapboxing and Fox News legitimizing on this subject. Stir trouble on your blog if you need to vent more. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I support the issue being titled "Child Protection" rather than "pedophilia", for a variety of reasons, so long as the substance of the policy isn't lost in the process of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support -- keep policy description under Blocking/Child protection, redirect this page and merge talk pages. Minor4th• talk20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ludwig, we must have been misunderstanding each other earlier since we are in agreement with how this should be handled. I apologize for taking issue with what you were saying, as i clearly misinterpreted. Minor4th• talk22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize this, but the language under the Blocking/Child protection section is now quite different than the language under Wikipedia:Child protection. The language should be the same. I think the changes people have been making are to the Blocking section and those changes should be ported to the WP:Child protection. I will boldly make that adjustment, and anyone is free to revert and discuss under WP:BRD. Minor4th• talk22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not tolerate users who attempt to pursue or facilitate inappropriate relationships with children, who advocate inappropriate adult-child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles. Editors engaged in such conduct will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, and any offending material removed. For more information, please see Child protection issues, part of Wikipedia's policy on the blocking of disruptive and abusive editors.
To report concerns about users who appear to be in violation of this policy, write to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at the following e-mail address:
arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org
Reports of users engaging in such conduct not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment or consensus.
Sorry Meco, I just saw your suggestion too late. It was a good suggestion but hopefully you are happy with the way I handled this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have now completed the merge of the histories of both the subject page and talk page. Hopefully everything is in order. I would have done it yesterday at the same time the redirect was made, but I wasn't sure if the move to this title was deliberately done in this convoluted way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
request actioned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org. Talk-page editing and the ability to send e-mails through the user interface should be disabled, and the blocking administrator should notify the committee as soon as possible."
Done Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
--Ludwigs2 06:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
--Ludwigs2 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
--Ludwigs2 18:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)