Wikipedia talk:Child protection

Let's Get To It

If we're going to open an RfC, then let's open an RfC already. Letting this thing stall and die here would not be good for the community, as it is almost certain that more complications of some form will arise in the future. So...we gonna do this? Silverseren^C 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... I now have come to think that it might not be a bad idea to get this out in the open once and for all. Opening a can of worms isn't necessarily always a bad thing, I guess, and if by fully opening this one we get people talking about the issues rationally and openly then I say go for it. It's really that "talking...rationally" thing I'm most worried about now, though... That caveat noted, RfC is better than burying the issue I guess --Jubilee♫clipman 23:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just think that burying it won't benefit anyone in the long run. This subject has come up time and again and caused a big ruckus every time. It would be better if we settled it with community consensus once and for all. I'm going to assume good faith that the community at large will be able to deal with this rationally and not emotionally. That might be a bit much to expect, but i'd like to think that the community can handle things. Silverseren^C 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I vote: "Go! Go! Go!" (as Murray Walker used to say) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But...but...I don't know how to open an RfC. o_o Buddy was going to do it, remember? He's the one that knows the wording for it anyways. Silverseren^C 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do know how to open an RfC but don't know the wording for the summary statement... which will need to be discussed anyway, I suspect: we need to be be very clear what we are Requesting Comment on before we go ahead with this—mammoth—task... Are we asking that Buddy's essay is a fair statement of facts? Or that this Information Page is a correct statement of the normal and best practice in dealing with self-IDed pedophiles? Or that the !Policy should be indeed be written down in the first place? Or what? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From what i've been able to tell, we want the RfC to be about whether this should even be allowed as a policy. As Arbcom does not have any jurisdiction until some sort of policy has been made. I am rather interested in what will happen if the community decides that this is wrong and no policy is made at all, but anyhow...from what i've gathered, we want to use Buddy's essay as a summary of the facts on both sides of the issue and whether a policy should or should not be created in the wording that this page is on. Simply, should admitted pedophiles, (I still think pedophile should be clarified somewhere to mean those that have an attraction, but not those that have actually done anything) be indef blocked immediately or should they not. Silverseren^C 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. That does appear to be the size of it. We need Buddy back, though. It's nearly 2am here, anyway, so I'll have to leave this for now and get back over here tommorrow. No rush to do this, I guess? We have to get it right really --Jubilee♫clipman 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No rush. I just made this section because it seemed the discussion was stagnating. As long as we're still moving toward something, i'm happy. Now I have to get back to ANI. It's exploding right now. Another admin wheel-war. Silverseren^C 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording could be pretty simple... KnightLago's statement above detailing ArbCom's official stance, and ask the community if they agree. It gets complicated if you also want to include arguments for and against, so the community can see those prior to deciding. I renew my suggestion that an RFC subpage is the best way to get this done and form a clear picture of where the community is at. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups can be used as a template, if anyone is interested. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh,I forgot to mention that I change my mind, I think a subpage would be better than this page. Way, way too crowded here. We just need to make sure that both sides are represented well when we do make the subpage. Silverseren^C 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do we just disregard users that make an emotional no response to it? How do we determine what is emotional? Ect. Silverseren^C 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one gets to decide whose responses are valid and whose aren't. Whoever wants to comment can comment, whether they be emotional or calm or erratic. Comments aren't "mediated" there, at least not any more than other discussion areas. The reason I want an RFC subpage is due to the different structure, not because of talk page overcrowding (as I've tried to explain before, talk pages never get "too full", as things can always be archived etc). On an RFC subpage, the sides get represented by people who make statements. We just advertise the RFC, and people on both sides will provide the arguments (including us, assumedly). Equazcion ^(talk) 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. I've never been involved in an RfC before, so this will be a new experience. :3 Silverseren^C 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC's are often closed by an admin, however, who might summarise the RFC in a "closing statement". This isn't necessary (RfC is intended as "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution...") but it is often good practice if the RFC is complex. The recent RfC on unsourced BLP's is one such horribly complex double RfC: Phase II was closed twice... Interesting to see if this one will need to be closed... and by whom --Jubilee♫clipman 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a sitting arbitrator

I don't know that a formal community policy is of benefit to anyone, including the community, particularly as its most likely effect will be to give problematic editors a way to wiki-lawyer their way out of a block. 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. There are several factors which, quite simply, cannot be discussed on-wiki, largely involving the manner in which editors who are blocked for this reason are identified as falling into this classification. For example, private correspondence may be involved, in some cases relating to an underage editor. Paedophile advocacy sites sometimes give telltale clues to agendas that are not discussed on this site. For WP:BEANS reasons, the editing patterns and practices that are most closely associated with paedophile advocacy are not openly discussed; frankly, I don't think it is to the advantage of our own community to "help" such advocacy groups fine-tune their practices to attempt to avoid detection while continuing their work.

The other reason for quiet blocking (preferably without using the "P" word anywhere in the discussion - administrators please note!) is that it is potentially harmful for the blocked editor to be identified in that way, if the administrator's assessment is incorrect.

Our editing community has circumscribed the participation of those editing with an agenda almost since the inception of this site, and indefinitely blocking or banning those who abuse the site for their own agendas occurs on a regular basis, often on the basis of analysis by one administrator - and that is for situations where the only likely harm is a reader finding a biased article or two. In situations where there is a paedophile advocacy overlay, there is not only the biased agenda, there is the potential harm to our younger editors, and to our community's reputation. Nobody has the "right" to edit Wikipedia, and I am at a loss as to why this community should tolerate paedophile advocacy (or insist on complex and public, reputation-destroying processes) when we ban or indefinitely block people for edit-warring or page-moving without batting an eye. Risker (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, as is clear by this long discussion. Such "advocacy" is often not as obvious as edit warring. Aiken ♫ 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's sometimes not as obvious. Indeed, there's as much (if not more) paedophile advocacy in articles whose titles don't appear to bear any relation to paedophilia than in those that touch on the subject. But, just as checkusers don't publicise the editing behaviours that assist them in identifying sockmasters (in order to avoid "teaching" sockmasters what to avoid in the future), it would be irresponsible to publicise the "tells" for paedophile advocacy edits. Make no mistake. This discussion is being closely monitored by paedophile advocacy groups so they can learn how to divide the community and fine-tune their agenda-based editing. Your "it's not as simple as that" is best responded to by administrators carefully reviewing the editing patterns (in context), making the quiet block, pointing the editor to Arbcom, and ensuring that Arbcom knows the basis for the block. Arbcom can, and has, lifted blocks that on closer examination give the strong appearance of being unfounded. Risker (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Block first, ask questions later? I don't like the sound of that. I certainly wouldn't want a mysterious block in my blocklog, that was placed because an admin decided I was something I was not. That is just as damaging as publicly accusing somebody. Aiken ♫ 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The alternative (which I mentioned above) as in less clear cut cases, a person whose suspicions have been raised should email the Committee and let us look into the matter and take the appropriate action. This block first idea really applies to self-identified pedophiles, not people who are operating in a less clear manner. See my original post above. KnightLago (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, KnightLago. In fact, I'd suggest that's the preferred course of action in all but the most blatant cases. Having said that, I want to make clear what the expectation is for administrators one way or the other. Risker (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is the point of this proposed policy... codifying practise. The word of an arbitrator is not law, but community approved policy (mostly) is. Aiken ♫ 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: that is exactly the reason we have this Information Page. Perhaps WP:DENY applies, anyway? Perhaps, therefore, RfC is exactly what we don't need? I'll ask KnightLago and Risker here and now: does this Information Page describe exactly "the current practices toward self-identified pedophiles and those advocating pedophilia"? If so, we probably need to just leave this here and refer people to it as and when necessary (despite my recent "Go! Go! Go!" which perhaps needs the qualifier "Unless I'm very much mistaken...") --Jubilee♫clipman 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As currently worded, it describes the status quo correctly. — Coren ^(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But we should change the block first, ask questions later idea, except for only the clearest, obvious cases (self-identification). Everything else should be emailed to arbcom, who can investigate. Aiken ♫ 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There may be other circumstances under which it is appropriate for admins to block first and notify Arbcom. For example, several former arbitrators in particular are well-versed in identifying pro-paedo advocacy, as are a few other admins; they should not be required to hold off on blocking. No admin should be prevented from blocking an obvious advocacy sock, regardless of whether or not they "self-identify". What is written on this current version of Wikipedia:Pedophilia is the status quo, and will remain so. Risker (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Will it? Says who? I'm very concerned that you find blocking first, ask questions later to be an acceptable method of dealing with this. As someone said previously, mistakes have been made, and I for one would not want a mistake like that tarnishing my good record. Would you? Aiken ♫ 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point out to me where someone claims that a mistake has been made. I'm not seeing it on this page unless it's couched in some term that doesn't show up on my search. You might want to email me, if it involves the name of an editor who has been cleared of any issues. Risker (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You did: "Arbcom can, and has, lifted blocks that on closer examination give the strong appearance of being unfounded". That should not be happening - the block should not be given in the first place. Aiken ♫ 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. All kinds of blocks are lifted when there is reason to lift them. I can think of two occasions where it was decided the block was not appropriate; in both cases, as I recall, there was discussion with the blocking administrator about the appropriateness of the block in the first place, and in both cases the blocked editor had made edits in the paedophilia topic area. That's pretty much the standard for one-off errors in judgment on blocking. Nobody wants people to be incorrectly blocked, don't get me wrong, but there's little difference between correcting an error in a block that is done discreetly and discussed quietly and privately and one that's discussed in vivid colour on ANI, except for the level of drama, hurt, embarrassment and residual bitterness on the part of all parties that accompanies the ANI discussion. Risker (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but it still doesn't actually address the "is blocking admitted pedophiles really the best course of action" question that's been explored rather extensively above. Dealing with actual advocacy was never really in doubt, especially since any kind of advocacy aimed at influencing articles isn't good in general. The "admitted pedophiles" part was the big question, and one which ArbCom hasn't even defended with any sort of rationale yet (though many have offered their educated guesses and conjecture here). Equazcion ^(talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, I would think, and other editors have already addressed this. Short of assigning someone to review every edit proposed by self-acknowledged paedophiles in advance of them being posted, and locking down their ability to send emails(which I do not believe we can technically do without actually blocking them), we have no way of preventing them from making inappropriate contacts with young editors. Wikipedia is not therapy, as is often said, and this is a psychiatric condition that can easily cause harm to others, and to the encyclopedia, through the use of our site. Permitting self-acknowledged paedophiles access to underage editors is problematic from an ethical, moral and potentially legal perspective. Risker (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "legal" part seems like an excuse to me, to allow us to go with our gut regarding the other two, ie. blocking people we find too morally reprehensible for comfort. As much as it's been addressed above, the addressals (is that a word?) have also been addressed (in other words, there have been counter-arguments). Most prominently, from a purely practical standpoint, the people who are self-admitted seem least likely to be the ones trying to contact young people; and blocking people when they admit it just sends a message to others that they best keep it to themselves. When you you take both of those together, this policy wouldn't seem to help matters. If we're not as concerned with the practical as we are with protecting Wikipedia's reputation and covering our asses, this essentially superficial show of condemnation for pedophilia might be effective. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Equazcion, I am sorry you feel that way. But what Risker and I have written is the position of the Arbitration Committee, and I would say a large part of the community as well. Pedophilia, whether through self-identification or advocacy, is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and will remain that way. KnightLago (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Equaczion, nobody knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of most people; we can't address problems we don't know about, and if the issue doesn't manifest itself in a way that can come to our attention, we as a community cannot correct it. The site generally operates on the principle of assuming good faith, but AGF isn't a suicide pact, and blocking editors who have made it clear that they have a condition that is pretty obviously going to create problems for the project seems to be a clearcut decision. Advertising oneself as a paedophile is disruptive in a project where a significant proportion of the editors are underage; I can't think of a single site that features participant interaction across all age groups where self-acknowledged paedophiles are welcome. Risker (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There aren't many sites like Wikipedia around, that's for sure. New editors more than often come here expecting us to be like other sites, ie. a place where you can post your opinion as official without respecting NPOV. True, we can't address problems we don't know about, but we can look intelligently at the big picture and formulate a strategy that best serves the public, as opposed to dealing with individual situations in the way that best comforts us, as the two are often in opposition. I've described what I believe to be a rather good argument for why this practice only hurts the big picture. Wouldn't you rather they advertise it than keep it a secret? History has surely shown us that people excluded from a popular group are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded than to cease attempts to gain acceptance. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot in any way see how your suggestion would improve anything. Permitting people to self-declare as paedophiles will not reduce anyone's risk at all. More importantly, Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to be the one place on the 'net where paedophiles can openly declare themselves and still be allowed to come in contact with thousands of youngsters. Sorry Equaczion, but I believe your thinking with respect to paedophilia is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians, not to mention just about every extant society. Risker (talk)

Perhaps it is. But when a debate comes down to a statement of the majority opinion as rationale, accompanied by a "well this is the way it is whether you like it or not", that can only make us doubt the thinking behind it even more (again, these are basic historical lessons). Stalwart positions are rarely helpful in realizing the best course of action. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You've not presented any "historical lessons" that the risk was reduced by permitting such disclosure and permitting self-acknowledged paedophiles access to children. You've only shown that people who don't meet the requirements to participate in certain activities will try to hide the fact that they don't meet the requirements. It's hardly the same thing. Risker (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he said at all. He is stating in a general viewpoint, not directly about pedophilia, like you seem to have twisted it. He means that, quite often, in history when a leader or a government or anyone like that says, "Things are like this because I say it is and it doesn't matter what you think", it is proven that that person or group is wrong. That is why we have democracy after all, so that no one can say something like that and actually have the power to back it up. We have the majority that can decide what it is that they want to do and that is what we are saying should happen here. If you are so certain that the community will side with you, then you should have no problem with bringing it up with the community, for once consensus is made, that is the way it is. Without community consensus and seemingly just Arbcom's arbitrary control over this entire situation, it seems like Arbcom is attempting to sidestep the community and decide things entirely on their own and to make things as they want it. This is not what Arbcom was created to do, this is not it at all. Silverseren^C 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is essentially what I meant. I'm not sure that Risker twisted it intentionally though, he may have just misunderstood. But yeah, a person arguing from a solid foundation never ends up responding to a debate with "sorry but this is just how it is". That's rather what one says when they've been adequately backed into a corner and the outcome is nevertheless theirs to decide. I'd like to see an RFC, and I don't know if Risker is necessarily opposed to one. Though it's not clear if ArbCom would respect the outcome should it conflict with their views, it might still be difficult to ignore, and might influence things over time. I'd be satisfied myself if everyone were to just think about this more rationally and practically than they are currently, and if the outcome is the same, then so be it... but these are really points that rightly deserve consideration, and dismissing them off the bat for no good reason isn't smart. IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote you directly: "History has surely shown us that people excluded from a popular group are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded than to cease attempts to gain acceptance." We're talking about paedophiles. I had every reason to believe that you were applying that historical theory (which again you've provided no evidence for) to this specific situation. Perhaps you need to pay a bit more attention to the history of this site, though. The process for dealing with paedophiles developed as a result of the community becoming increasingly more aware of the adverse effects to the encyclopedia that were associated with both paedophile advocates and self-declared paedophiles on the site; it did not emerge fully formed from a vacuum. It was interfering with the project's purpose. And no, the practice is not going to be changing. Your positions have been refuted, (which I believe is what you refer to as "dismissing them off the bat") and the well-being of the project as a whole takes precedence. Risker (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was applying more general historical lessons to this specific case. Just because I didn't point to one that specifically involved pedophiles doesn't nullify the point. "...people excluded from a popular group..." -- we're dealing with that situation here -- "...are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded..." -- so history has taught us to expect that outcome. "...as a result of the community becoming increasingly more aware..." -- Traditionally though, Wikipedia hasn't really been a place where mass panic is bowed to. We're more enlightened than everyone else, in most regards. When lots of people have an issue, whether we accommodate them still depends on there being a good practical reason to. Determining the best practical ways to deal with any actual threat seem to take a backseat in this case though. Our withdrawn and objective stance seems to dwindle depending on just how heinous a topic we're dealing with. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far, the only "hysteria" I see is of the "OMG we're not letting self-identified paedophiles edit!!!" type. There wasn't any particular hysteria at the time that these processes were instituted, only a pretty nasty streak of trolling and people being so enamoured of written process that they couldn't see the forest for the trees. The current processes do not reflect hysteria, and are intended to reduce such. If you can think of methods to supplement the current process, speak up; but condemning the manner in which genuine, known threats are being dealt with because they aren't necessarily effective in addressing unknown threats seems rather precious. Risker (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with other websites

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♫clipman 21:57, 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. Silverseren^C 06:10, 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. Silverseren^C 08:12, 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)

Uh... so which one does self-identifying as a pedophile fall under? Unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory?? TotientDragooned (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by "neutral block summary"?

Does "block the user with a neutral block summary" mean that the reason for the block will not be available to the Wikipedia community in general? __meco (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it means to avoid making potentially defamatory block summaries. Prodego ^talk 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, presumably because either calling them a pedophile or linking to this essay would be defamation, of a sort. Silverseren^C 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the word "uncharacterized" where block summaries are mentioned the first time, cause the word "neutral" didn't really seem to convey the point adequately. Yes, that's what it means, basically; the actual block reason shouldn't be specified publicly, because otherwise someone's name could easily get smeared for life as a result of this. This isn't exactly a foolproof or legally thorough investigation, so no one should be publicly denounced as a result of it. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But is this protection necessary as the block comes as a consequence of self-identifying? __meco (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly it doesn't just come from self-identifying, because we're also talking about advocacy. Secondly though I would say yes, it's still needed in the case of self-identification, because while our policy is to block on first sight of the admittance, the circumstances behind the admittance isn't something we investigate at all. It could have been a joke or a dare; but those are purely examples off the top of my head. The point is we don't know, and we don't want to mess up anyone's future as a result. IMO, we don't have the right to make someone's self-admittance a matter of permanent record. The point of this policy is just to get them off the encyclopedia, not make announcements to the public that for all intents and purposes can never be taken back. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• On the face of it, it means don't write "Warning: pedophile alert!!!" or some such; however, I think that both Elen of the Roads (who first used the word "neutral" in this context on the info page) and KnightLago (the ArbCom member who was the first to clearly endorse the use of that word above) are suggesting more than that. My reading of the above lengthy discussion is that the block itself should be based on the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and therefore the block summary should be something like "actions that place users in danger" while the underlying reason for the block remains pedophile-advocacy or self-identification as a pedophile—both of which genuinely could "place users in danger", including the subject of the block, indeed. (So "yes", Meco, this protection is necessary and, furthermore, the objectionable edits are usually deleted and the history itself only open to admins. But "no" the summary will be viewable by anyone, presumeably.) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Actions that place users in danger" is relatively mild but still carries the same essential problem. The practice has actually been to leave a simple "contact arbcom regarding this block" or maybe a "disruptive editing" summary, so far. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

They make equal sense. It would be the admin's call, I guess, but they certainly shouldn't use any potentially defamatory or libelous language so a "neutrally worded block summary" (to be more precise, perhaps) is necessary --Jubilee♫clipman 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I most strongly agree with Equazcion's "Contact Arbcom regarding this block" as the summary to use, as even a summary like Jubilee's "Actions..." could prove problematic if, say, it was decided that the blockee had no paedophilia (or other blockable) involvement. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes: I hadn't thought of it that way when I wrote the above. Indeed, even "disruptive editing" might not be correct since disruption in this case implies interruption and disorder affecting other editors which latter is not always the case. Sematics aside, though, the summary needs at least to contain the words "contact WP:ARBCOM" since they are indeed the people to talk to regarding such a block --Jubilee♫clipman 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is the only circumstance that results in a block summary of "contact ArbCom", then this is, in the end, just a strange way of spelling "I think this user is a pedophile who will harm children on Wikipedia". Consequently, if there are non-pedophilia reasons for a user to be blocked with this summary, then identifying those other uses might be an act of kindness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This page should be classed as policy

Because it is policy. Policy is practice; policy is what we do, and this page describes that. I've read the talk page above, and I've yet to see any convincing argument why {{Policy}} shouldn't be added here. Robofish (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We went round in circles with that one several times trying all the various options: see the page's history. {{infopage}} is the only tag most people can agree on—or at least not object to --Jubilee♫clipman 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally the page was supposed to be a vague description of what action outside observers could expect to see when a pedophile is encountered. It seemed to have been settled on that that would not be a policy. However I later took the initiative in adding specifics, particularly instructions for administrators and editors encountering pedophiles, based on information provided by ArbCom comment above. I did this because I felt that the information should be made available, less mysterious and vague, both to benefit operation and facilitate focused discussion of the practice. The result may have been that this page feels more policy-like now.

I won't say it should be policy since some might take that as support of the practice; however I do support the fact that practices should generally have policies backing them up. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just rewritten the page more inline with my original comment and added the policy tag. This has been the policy of the English Wikipedia for years, just unwritten. To deny that fact, when the previous version of the page I just edited even said so, is to bury one's head in the sand. KnightLago (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not part of Wikipedia:Banning policy? --Conti|✉ 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• According to WP:PROPOSAL, to promote a page to Policy status you normally ask the community via RfC, i.e. by sticking {{rfctag|policy}} at the top of a new section on the document's talkpage, adding the discussion to WP:CD, and posting notices to WP:VPP and WP:VPR. Until the community accept a page as Policy it remains !Policy even if it is de facto a Policy... or have I missed something? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can just call it a guideline, which is closer to what it is. Or an information page. I'm hesitant to call it a policy, myself, for a lot of reasons. Risker (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said, though official WP Guidelines also need full community support (witness the brouhaha surrounding WP:WTW...) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I switched the {{policy}} tag back to the {{infopage}} tag per BRD. There is nothing within the arbitration policy that says arbcom can write policy on its own without community consensus. I agree with Jubileeclipman that a community-wide RfC is in order before any page is marked as a policy. As mentioned above, there has not yet been an established community consensus on pedophilia, just an arb-com consensus. We need community consensus to establish policy pages in the mainspace, not just the opinions of a few arbcom members. It's actions such as this that lead me to think ArbCom is getting a bit out of control. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Disabling email

I think the intention behind that is to prevent them from possibly contacting kids through the wiki. The side effect is that they can't contact administrators to discuss the block, of course, but they will be directed to the arbcom email address. If we're to have this policy that should probably be re-inserted. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized the email thing wasn't even removed. I was making an assumption based on the edit summary. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ah! I wondered about that myself, actually. I though it meant their "E-mail this user" button was disabled but now I realise it probably means that their access to other editors' email via that button on those other users' pages is also disabled --Jubilee♫clipman 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent copy edits

I like the recent edits, because they separate clearly the instructions for "clear cut" cases from the "not so clear cut" cases. I'm not a big fan of the repeated attempts to go back to the wording above in the "official" arbcom comment, because while it's the official stance and all, it could do with some improvement in its presentation. It's not gospel, people. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I also like the changes made. It explains a lot better and makes much more sense than the previous version. The differentiation between types of cases also helps, I think. Silverseren^C 00:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I undid Equazcion's last change which was to undue Jubileeclipman's change. It is very important that we emphasize in all cases admins need to use a neutral block summary that directs the person to contact Arbcom, disable talk page access, and email. I think this wording does that best. KnightLago (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jubileeclipman reverted the copy edits, rather than resinstated them. You've just undone what you say you agree with above. Also, in the "less clearcut" cases, we're saying they should notify arbcom rather than perform a block; so since arbcom would implement the possible block, it doesn't seem like we'd need to instruct admins on a block summary in that case. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, no, I meant that I agree with showing both examples of cases. We don't want people to try and infer that someone is a pedophile based on some comments and block them on that assumption. That is detrimental to them as an editor if it turns out not to be true and could make them leave Wikipedia forever. This change explains the difference between the two cases in a very clear way. I do not believe the version you reverted it to will work,because it is extremely broad. We need to have at least enough explanation in the page that wrongly-accused blocking is minimized. Silverseren^C 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

^ what he said. KnightLago's version is less clear. I propose reinstating the changes. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted my change. I will take another stab at it tomorrow when I am fresh (starting here on the talk page). Night all! KnightLago (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I made this change. Anything more than that and I would have asked here first. KnightLago (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I had actually misread the previous version when I reverted: sorry about that! The page makes more sense and is less ambiguous now that KnightLago has further clarified things --Jubilee♫clipman 20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I do not understand what this is really about

I cannot quite seem to get my head around the actual rationale for the unusual attention and provisions that have been instituted to rid Wikipedia of "pedophiles" and prevent this group from taking part in the editing of the Wikipedia provided they don't violate our general policies and guidelines.

First I must admit that I haven't studied the corpus of discussions and available pages dealing with this subject (i.e. "pedophiles/pedophilia advocates on Wikipedia"), so things may become clearer to me as a matter of progression.

There appears to be a few hinges that I find unclear. Who are we actually dealing with here? Are individuals being singled out because they advocate age of consent reform and edit related articles in order that they become more neutral and less biased against this position? (That would be a matter of simple content dispute.) If not, then surely they must stand out being in violation of other Wikipedia rules that can be generalized, not needing to be transfixed to any one subject? Granted, age of consent reform advocacy and child abuse is often commingled, i.e. if someone advocates the former, and does nothing else, then surely as night follows day a barrage of allegations and invectives are going to be hurled at that person for being a child abuser or advocating child abuse, the two latter often indiscriminately.

This issue is a lot more contentious and infested with strong and volatile emotionality than the comparable issue of drug policy reform advocacy. If someone advocates drug policy reform we don't usually see a vituperative follow-up accusing that person of wanting to turn our children into heroin addicts. My point being that in that issue a much greater segment of involved parties are going to see that there are plentifold possible facets to advocating drug policy reform.

To summarize, my question is, is there something qualitatively unique about the violations (against Wikipedia guidelines and policies) made by a group labeled "pedophile editors" or "pedophilia advocating editors"? And by qualitatively unique I require that similar qualities are not found in other advocacy/interest groups that have not been singled out for special treatment (e.g. drug policy advocacy, proponents of suicide bombings and Sharia laws or the execution of Fatwahs). __meco (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, there is nothing unique about them, besides the "gross" factor that is connected with pedophilia (and the illegal factor as well, true, but the same could be said for most drugs). And do note that "admitted pedophiles" when discussed on this information page refers to people with admitted pedophilic likes or tendencies, not convicted pedophiles. Just pointing that out. Silverseren^C 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said, sir (or madam), and the unfortunate answer is that not everyone is as smart or objective as you are. "I don't know how any intelligent person could not see it my way" has been the basic response to requests for objective evidence. Above, an arbitrator sarcastically wrote that opponents were saying "OMG we're not letting self-identified paedophiles edit!!!"; which basically shows the degree of subjectivity we're dealing with. How can any intelligent person possibly be a proponent of pedophiles being allowed to edit? How indeed. What disgusting or excessively pedantic individual would argue for such a thing, or even for requiring the usual amount of process and debate before sanctioning a special banning practice? The taboo nature of the subject means that if you put too much thought into this, you yourself are a reprehensible person. Meco, if the general public or even just our arbitrators were as level-headed as you, we might not be here. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The document answers you quite unequivocally, IMO: "Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely." Basically, anyone that states (either on WP or elsewhere) "I am a pedophile", creates or displays a user box stating that they are a pedophile or makes any equally—or even more obviously—objectionable statement will be blocked on sight, per "In clear cases". "Advocacy" is more complex but I would suspect that anyone advocating infantophilia would be banned and blocked while anyone simply suggesting a change in their country's law to lower the AoC by a year or two would be fine. "In less clear-cut cases" would apply in the latter case but "In clear cases" would apply in the former. Basically, WP:UCS... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What I think is being asked is more of a "why" scenario. And the fact of, is the reason for this because it's something illegal? If so, then anyone who states doing or having an interest in anything else illegal should also be banned. Silverseren^C 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We are seriously going round in circles now... The point of this practice (and de facto Policy) is to protect our younger editors. Self-proclaimed murderers and even self-proclaimed terrorists and advocates of thse crimes are not a "Clear and Present Danger", AFAIK, unlike self-proclaimed pedophiles and pedophile advocates --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that reasoning, however, have there been episodes that were deemed perilous to our younger audience related to these editors which have now been removed? My point is: Were these editors using Wikipedia to solicit minors for presumably sexual relations, were they posting child pornography or were they attempting to publish links to illegal websites? Shouldn't we be presented with, if not actual cases, at least a brief overview of what the past incidents were that engendered the creation of this page and the related would-be policy? __meco (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Meco, we are not going to provide examples of when these things happened, although you might want to look back to early 2006 when the matter was discussed in several places on-site. More particularly, in response to your earlier comments in this thread, we *do* routinely indefinitely block individuals who come onto this site to advocate violence against others or with a specific advocacy agenda that adversely affects the content and/or editing climate of the encyclopedia (your examples of drug policy advocacy, proponents of suicide bombings and Sharia laws or the execution of Fatwahs could all fit in there). Risker (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco did mention that he's speaking of situations where users edit articles related "in order that they become more neutral and less biased against this position", rather than the kind of editing that adversely affects content. And, stating you have an attraction isn't advocating acting upon it. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that a genuine edit that seeks to balance an article is going to lead to a block and/or ban—especially if that edit is properly sourced. And stating you have an attraction to prepubescents is bound to get a few funny looks at the very least... I think it really is as obvious as that --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That apparent rejection of transparency (i.e. a vague reference for interested individuals to investigate unspecified discussions that took place in early 2006) makes it nearly impossible (or at least very difficult) to validate the rationale for this page and the policy being proposed/asserted. Since these instruments clearly constitute extraordinary measures I think that the process that has led us to where we currently are has to be documented.in order for it to comply with some basic principles on which this project (Wikipedia) is based. I am thinking primarily of the decision-making processes based on consensus and the necessity for leaving a trail which makes this consensus-making process visible. __meco (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is due to the sensitive nature of the subject that more precise details cannot be provided. Saying 'such-and-such happened at such-and-such time involving such-and-such person' would raise all kinds of problems, both legal and ethical, and would be a really bad idea. A very broad summary (as I understand it) is that around 2006 the issue of users self-identifying as paedophiles was first brought to community attention, and a consensus developed that such users should be blocked indefinitely. I can't point to the actual discussion, but suffice to say this is policy and has been for some time. Beyond that, you're just going to have to trust ArbCom on this one. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I find both your reply and the similar reply from Risker extremely unsatisfying. Indeed, if this remains the situation with regards to this page and the related policy, that would constitute a direct opposition to the principle of transparency in policy-making matters. If this policy was enacted in society at large it would be a blatant violation of human rights and due process. __meco (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a website, not "society at large", and the policy has been transparent since it was invoked - Arbcom had to tell admins to do this, so everyone knew.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be society at large, but the same principles apply. ArbCom was never supposed to decree rules unilaterally, and in fact said that it wouldn't, despite the fact that it probably could since it has so much power; and now, it is. Wikipedia belongs to its community, as we're generally told, and that's just not how things are done. From where I'm standing, by definition, this is an abuse of power. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The scope of Arbcom's powers almost entirely pertains to disputes raised to them. It does not, in the slightest, pertain to creating policy for all of Wikipedia. Policy made, just like anything else, has to be done through community consensus, not by Arbcom decision. Furthermore, according to their transparency policy, Arbcom has yet to release a detailed rationale for this decision. All we've heard so far has either been a "because we say so" or has been arguments that are one-sided and not strong or detailed at all. In total, Arbcom neither has the authority to make this a policy nor has it followed its own rules for making decisions as it is. Silverseren^C 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Futhermore, I have posted a link to the relevent Userbox TfD on this very talk page and that same section (Past actions) contains other links. Buddy's essay is also still available: User:Buddy431/pedophilia draft. I would strongly resist adding those links to the document itself, however, since the whole point of this !Policy is to make as little fuss as possible when dealing with such editors; parading their names—even indirectly—on the very document that discusses how to deal with such editors quietly and unfussily goes against the very spirit of the practice outlined in that document. Hence, I also would not recommend RfC (discussed several times now) but simply change the status to Policy per Jimbo's wise words on his talkpage --Jubilee♫clipman 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that those other situations fail to explain how the user was damaging the project. Especially the situation with the "This user loves girls as opposed to boys" userbox, which gave no indication, beyond presumption of the links, that the user had done anything wrong. Silverseren^C 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What this then becomes is nothing less than a "take them away quietly" doctrine justified on the premise that those being "taken away" needs to be protected from the community at large, i.e. their actions have been so hineous and detestable that they would become subject to harassment, ridicule, even persecution. This whole secrecy-enshrouded policy makes sure that the ostracism of people who voice their opinions in this area in opposition to social consensus remains solidly in place. In fact, this hush-hush practice – and its inception – cements the removal of utterances which challenge the consensus under the guise of protecting either these perfunctorily labeled anti-social individuals or "our children". If this isn't insidious it sure is thoughtless. __meco (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And if this were a forum dedicated to WP:FREESPEECH you might have a point. However, it is an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment is utterly non-sequiturial. My principal argument is that we should have transparency in our policy-making. Besides, how would suppressing certain opinions be particularly compatible with making an encyclopedia? __meco (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but someone stating that one is a pedophile is not an "opinion" it is a statement. At the risk of offending anyone, it is like saying "I am gay", "I am Christian" or "I am an academic" (which are all fine, of course). Conversely, stating that any adults' engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents (the precise definition of "pedophilia" notwithstanding) is acceptable is an utterly different matter to stating that homosexual activity is acceptable/unacceptable --Jubilee♫clipman 15:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some comments that were specific to an individual editor. It is inappropriate to discuss one particular editor's block here, particularly when there is a block reason directing any comments to the Arbitration Committee. Please respect that user's privacy. If you have a *need* to know more about their block (need != curiosity), you can contact the blocking administrator or Arbcom by email. I will review this page in its totality in a brief while to remove any specific references to other blocked editors as well. Risker (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

All that we linked were normal edits and available information for the user. We had no criminal information on him, so it wasn't an invasion of privacy. Silverseren^C 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By discussing his block on this page, you are speculating that this editor was blocked for reasons related to paedophilia. There are other reasons besides paedophilia-related editing that blocks of editors are referred directly to Arbcom; almost all involve private or personal information about the individual (e.g., physical or mental health issues). The discussion of a specific editor's block on this page, where the focus of discussion is on blocking paedophiles and paedophilia advocates, essentially labels the editor a paedophile. Please do not do that. Risker (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@Risker: I almost posted a whole load more links related to that user... just as well I took longer than expected (due to server drop out my end) to find everything! Hopefully the rest of my post is OK given that I don't actually ID that editor.

@Meco: I just reviewed that editor's block log, contribution history and user talk history. The user talk was Oversighted as most likely were many of that editor's contributions (which, incidently, is why I linked to that process when I added the See Also originally). This all actually proves how effective and important this process is.... assuming that this editor was blocked for self-identification as a pedophile or advocacy. But I have absolutely no idea why this editor was blocked (which might be due to something else entirely) precisely because of the Oversighting and neutral block summary. Obviously, I am guessing (I don't even have Rollback let alone Sysop!) but I suspect my analysis is correct --Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

However, if it was for advocacy, that would be a very weak argument. Would you say that the mere fact that he edited articles related to pedophilia made him an advocate? I wouldn't, but some might and it might be that sort of accusation that got him blocked, since it appears that before this information page, even an accusation would be enough to get someone indef blocked. If he never tried to resolve it, then that verdict would stand, even if it was entirely unfounded. Silverseren^C 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know why the editor was blocked... which is the very point of the neutral block and the Oversighting --Jubilee♫clipman 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no possible way for us to know, which is quite shady. Arbcom shouldn't be the FBI here. Silverseren^C 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please check the actual case with ArbCom? __meco (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you, Meco? Just email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org and ask. You won't be allowed to report back, though, that I can assure you of here and now --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to do it, suffice to say. __meco (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An opinion

FWIW --Jubilee♫clipman 13:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling that he didn't even look at the talk page? :/ We've already explained quite succinctly why turning this into a policy isn't a good idea. Silverseren^C 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that Jimmy Wales visit this page and address the above section. __meco (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Er... WP:AGF probably applies here, especially in the case of the Founder... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On the power of ArbCom

(Warning, semi-essay, semi-rant to follow)

The fact of the matter is, ArbCom does make policy — to a point and within somewhat vague parameters — and it always has. Whether it's by applying some sine qua non Foundation mandates, or enforcing the basic principles underlying the project; sometimes it's by simple force of its interpretation of past practice and written policy. This, indeed, is as should be: the authority to draw a line in the sand and to exclude participations from those who step over it is the basis of the concept of final dispute resolution. In essence, we took over the primary role of Jimmy in the early days who settled disputes when the community itself could not figure out the right course of action — or agree on which was right.

The oft repeated mantra that "ArbCom only applies the policy, only the community can make policy" is, on close examination, relatively meaningless: if the community had agreed on a course of action then there would be nothing for ArbCom to do; disputes reach the committee only in two cases: when the community is unable to agree on what the proper resolution is, or when the actual means to that resolution is out of reach (as, for instance, in the case of removal of rights or handling of private information). Settling disputes by definition requires making policy. When the community finds that editor X violated rule Y by doing Z, then we just tweaked policy (even if relatively subtly in some cases).

Now, most of the time, the direction in which this policy writing (call it "tweaking" or "interpretation" if it makes you feel better) goes in the same direction that most editors would lean to; so few people notice or care. After all, our guiding principles are and will always remain those to which editors implicitly agreed when they joined our project: the well-being of the project, the five pillars, and a very few edicts coming from the Foundation (the copyright and privacy policy, mainly) and since basically everyone agrees on those, things don't get out of hand. Some of the time, however, the community itself isn't able to agree on a proper course when faced with a contentious issue and the committee has to take a position that will, invariably, anger or frustrate part of the community. Not only is this inevitable, but it's the reason the committee does (and should) exist. The alternative is camps that battle it out indefinitely, and the inevitable wheel wars that would result would be devastating. (And no, just coming down on wheel warring in isolation wouldn't help— you'd just give the advantage to the ones who acted unilaterally the fastest).

So, having to rule on contentious matters is inevitable. But then, rule how? Look at the current composition of the Committee. It's no surprise that an elected body would end up being so fundamentally diverse. Deletionists and inclusionists. Hardass enforcers, and patient negotiators. Lawyers, engineers, what-have-yous. The community picked a bunch of people they trusted to work for the best interests of the encyclopedia even if it meant that, someday, they might rule against them. They hope we will be there to make the tough calls when the community cannot; that we would be able to balance all these competing rules, requirements, pillars and objectives and do the "right thing".

Hence, this policy.

As a rule, Wikipedians love transparency. They like to discuss things (sometimes to death), and balance things, and evaluate history. They prefer to guide things to a consensus whenever it's at all possible. We all do. Likewise, nobody would wish to see the project harmed or destroyed by outside forces— and protecting the project from disrepute is a very important part of that (legally, morally and ethically). But sometimes, those needs conflict: pedophiles using Wikipedia to groom children, or to promote sexual abuse of children is obviously damaging to Wikipedia; but so is discussing the matter in the usual transparent matter. Not even counting the legal problems that a public discussion on whether some editor is or is not a pedophile can bring, the damage caused by an editor, say, that continues to edit on childhood topics after dozens of editors have publicly expressed good faith concerns that they are a sexual predator (but where consensus was not reached) would be deadly to Wikipedia's reputation — even if entirely unfounded.

Hence the quiet disposal. It's not very tasteful, and it offends some of Wikipedia's fundamentally libertarian principles. It's also, in context, the least worst way of handling things. Does this mean that ArbCom's secret decisions are always perfect? No. Personally, I think we sometimes veer dangerously close to witch hunts because of the moral panic that tends to surround the very topic of pedophilia. Sometimes, I think that we're being considerably too liberal in our definition of pedophilia, and cast too wide a net. I am part of that committee, and those concerns I express and are listened to. There's a reason we're a committee: so that, on average, we'll do the right thing. That the needed extremists will balance out when they clash, but that they'll spur the moderates when action is needed.

Does it mean that such a policy will always do the right thing? Probably not. Definitely not. We're 12-18 fallible human beings. Does the committee as a whole agree that this is required to protect the encyclopedia? Yes. Is it the best balance that can be achieved between protecting children, Wikipedia's reputation, our desire for fairness and transparency, and the reputation and life of those editors that — even if they are too dangerous to keep — remain human beings? Definitely. — Coren ^(talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because we elect people for a position doesn't mean that position doesn't have specified boundaries. We elect ArbCom to perhaps tweak policy as a result of an ArbCom case, but not to create policies wholesale whenever they feel necessary. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruling when existing policies and traditions conflict is, however, what we were elected to do. In practice, this invariably mean "filling the gap" by finding where in between things should fall. That policy has existed, implicitly, for years now — I'm not sure I agree with the need to publicize it, but documenting current practice is how such things get written. In practice, that policy will remain regardless of what happens to this page. ArbCom will continue to do the quiet bans and will restrict the explanation to the banned user alone, and will not permit discussion of the particular bans. — Coren ^(talk) 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I say policy, I don't generally mean this page and its potential "policy" tag on top. I mean the practice. I'm not against this page existing or being tagged if it describes what's being done, but I do continue to question what's being done. You saying that ArbCom will continue to do what it does doesn't really answer my concern, it rather confirms my reason for being concerned. I'm not sure how one differentiates between finding gaps and creating new policies, but that feels like an awfully ambiguous distinction ripe with abuse potential, when the "need" seems "urgent" enough. Besides which, there was no case and no ruling. Even if your "gap filling" theory panned out, you're only supposed to be filling gaps when you come across a case that warrants it, as result of the arbitration process. If you show me some document that says differently, I might have to reconsider, but so far this is my understanding. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's ripe with abuse potential. It is, I believe the best word is, perilous. It's one of those cases where, I suppose, trust in numbers is key: do you honestly believe that not one arbitrator would speak up if abuse there was? Nevertheless, I, and the committee, know this is a necessary evil. I understand, and respect, the principle under which you object — but I disagree with it and I'm pretty sure you're in a relatively small minority. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your explanation would make ArbCome ripe with abuse potential is my basis for saying that your explanation is inaccurate. I don't think ArbCom was ever meant to do things like this. They don't write policy nor do they fill policy gaps, nor do they create new practices. They merely rule on cases. I believe it's even been said that such rulings are not necessarily to be used to make policy changes. I think it's actually more than possible that 12 to 18 people could go along with each other and not necessarily recognize an abuse of their own power. That's not a very large group, relatively speaking. Perhaps I am in the minority, perhaps not. It's hard to tell when so few people are aware of what's going on. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom deals with disputes, sometimes they are disputes over policy. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but in cases where there is a dispute over it, they may get involved and resolve that issue in a way that clarifies the policy. But I maintain that arbcom can't just write a policy and enact it. Coren, you can't do quiet bans and prohibit discussion of them on your own, we will not allow it. So you must ask, are you acting alone? I don't think you are. Prodego ^talk 00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

My personal belief is that the policy is subject to community review, as is everything, but that another community review will support Arbcom's current policy as enforced.

As I said when this started, it's not like this hasn't come up before. It's controversial in that a small minority of people always object in principle to the policy. But a large majority have always agreed that it's reasonable and ok with them. The community can be asked again, if we want to do something else. But expanding "I have a concern" to "The community has a concern" does not logically follow. The vast majority of people don't find the policy to be unreasonable or objectionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 15. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"I believe my position is shared by a vast majority"

This argument I find extremely disconcerting coming from a member of the closest thing to the onerous Wikipedia secret cabal we could possibly identify: the ArbCom whose work in many ways imitates that of a would-be secret cabal. Even if, as in Coren's, considered and apparently balanced apologia above, the minority position is appreciated, understood, even to a certain degree agreed with, this still may not amount to anything more than a shill defense for the indefensible, although I am going to argue that the position may be argued honestly however misinformed. My take on this situation is that we are currently pandering to the moral panic which certainly does exist in many quarters with respect to protecting under-age people from adults who would like to groom them for sexual and/or romantic purposes. My considered interpretation of the situation is that the fear of becoming a party to a lynch mob incident makes many people proact on behalf of the expected lynch mob. The current practice of the ArbCom with respect to perceived pedophile or pedophile-/pedophilia–advocating editors fits that description. This is problematic, and indeed I believe it is still more problematic than ArbCom member Coren acknowledges. By intervening thus, the taboo which a would-be lynch mob would instill and fortify in an initially uninvolved public, becomes instilled and fortified on the mere assumption that there exists such an aggressive and violent mob. And this premise may not even be true to reality. It may have been in the past, but it may not be an actuality in the present. In this scenario the perceptions of a group of 18 people can be relatively easily manipulated by a targeted effort orchestrated by a dedicated and disciplined special-interest group. Of course, this would entail a coordinated and clandestinely directed lobby effort, but with a group of a mere 12-18 individuals being their target, it would be a feasible task. In this way the moral standards of a huge community like the English Wikipedia can be written fairly independent of the actual community consensus, and a forged descriptive morality survey becomes the enforced normative or prescriptive.

A knee-jerk response to what I have just written would be that I'm letting my conspiracy-prone inclination get the better of me, because no one or no group would actually be so fanatical on this issue that such a thing would ever come to manifestation. Oh really? __meco (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As of Arbcom explanations so far and the scanty evidence given, I have seen no indication that such a lynch mob has ever formed and, as I have faith in the community, I personally believe that one never will. Silverseren^C 08:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your faith is misplaced. Look up "userbox wars" if you want to see the underlying case that started this and the clash of the lynch mobs that caused it. — Coren ^(talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What is about Neutral point of view?

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♫clipman 19:42, 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♫clipman 20:24, 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?

• to oppose the passage of this policy?

• to ask this question?

Wnt (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 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)

I oppose tagging this as a policy, for the same reasons as mentioned by Wnt. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:38, 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 Borschov 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CENT

I put up a notice for this there. Probably needs some adjustment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind presenting clearly what this debate is actually about? Fences&Windows 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, but I think I don't fully understand it. What do you recommend? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:05, 29 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&Windows 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to have a link to an RfC that's somewhere on this page, I think. But, I'm not sure which section to link to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:34, 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)

What about pot smokers?

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)

Irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:15, 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.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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♫clipman 20:49, 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♫clipman 21:03, 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:

1. 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?
2. Is there any policy that ArbCom cannot write on its own if it sees fit to do so?
3. 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?
4. 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♫clipman 23:43, 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." 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♫clipman 07:56, 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♫clipman 00:37, 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:

1. Blocking people who use Wikipedia to pursue relationship with minors, and;
2. 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. Dcoetzee 02:27, 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. Dcoetzee 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Very well put, and very sad. TotientDragooned (talk) 05:29, 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. Dcoetzee 13:32, 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 Borschov 04:48, 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. ThemFromSpace 04:16, 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... ThemFromSpace 04:36, 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)

Was that @me? In that case: I have no idea whatsoever why that might be the case. You tell me! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The WMF may not set enwiki policy, but Jimbo can (WP:CONEXCEPT) and has declared this page policy. NW (Talk) 14:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's possibly outdated, in relation to : http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10775.html

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.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

No, I should have noted the edit conflict. —Ost (talk) 15:23, 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)

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.

Lastly, blocking merely for self-identification is in my opinion a clear-cut, "manifest injustice." TotientDragooned (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinions in other threads, 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)

And the majority of editors have no problem with this??!TotientDragooned (talk) 22:55, 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&Windows 00:04, 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.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please strike the word "political", as often the advocacy is very subtle and may appear to be a POV or WP:UNDUE violation. I won't go further for WP:BEANS reasons. Risker (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"to pursue relationships with minors" should read "to pursue or facilitate relationships with minors". WP:BEANS applies here, too.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Those changes look good and certainly help to clarify the process and to whom it should be applied --Jubilee♫clipman 08:02, 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)

I'd say it's clear enough that we mean any of those activities would attract a block, not only the conjunction of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

•  request actioned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both.

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.org for 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."

 Roger Davies ^talk 11:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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. Dcoetzee 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that accurately reflects current practice, Dcoetzee. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 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. Dcoetzee 14:49, 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. Dcoetzee 16:22, 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)

page is a bit big

I was thinking to archive discussion from over two months ago, any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)  Done Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What recourse is there?

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.

So, what then?

-- Powers ^T 23:06, 30 June 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&Windows 00:17, 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♫clipman 00:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, pedophilia is not the same thing as having sexual relations with a child. That much is clear, right? Powers ^T 01:11, 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♫clipman 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)