Wikipedia talk:Child protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

A Terminological Point[edit]

I think that some of the comments being made here about pedophiles and pedophilia miss the point. The policy is about protection of legal children and not only of physiological children. A sexual relationship between a 32-year-old male and a 16-year-old female, or a 32-year-old female and a 16-year-old male, is an inappropriate adult-child relationship based on the law, although the 32-year-old is not a pedophile, because their attraction is to a person who is a legal child but a physiological adult. I suggest that we avoid references to pedophiles and pedophilia, except in the context of self-identified pedophiles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that similar terminological points have been made in the #Clarification needed on some issues and #Objections sections above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And in addition to my statements in those sections about terminology, I also stated (among other things) in the #Images section: "...I point out that if the picture is of genitals, we cannot, by simply viewing the picture, definitively know if the person is over the age of 18. We cannot know because a 16-year-old guy, for example, may be post-pubescent (as most guys that age are) and therefore have genitals that resemble an adult's (because he is a complete biological adult)." Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Except for, similar to what PinkAmpersand stated in the Images section, if we see gray hair or other signs of old age regarding the genitals. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, the policy already does what you suggest, except for the following line: "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel." Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Rob, that's called ephebophilia. Kord Kakurios (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's only ephebophilia if the adult has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group. Otherwise, any man who finds a mid or late adolescent sexually attractive, including an 18 or 19-year-old, would be an ephebophile. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should stick to how the law defines it rather than come up with wording of our own. I frankly don't like the wording one bit. For instance: "Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue." No it doesn't! Do we want pedophiles on the site? My personal preference would be a solid NO. But my personal reasons would be insufficient. We should base it on legal reasons (International/Federal/State/County) not moral. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
とある白い猫/13 (A Certain White Cat), are you responding to Robert McClenon? Either way, it seems that you are stating that we should stick to how the law defines pedophilia. But I have to point out that, while law enforcement use the term pedophilia, the term pedophilia is not an official legal term. Child sexual abuse, often termed child molestation, or any of the terms for "adult-child sex" mentioned in the Statutory rape rape article are legal terms. What I mean is that the mental disorder pedophilia is not criminalized; it's the act of child sexual abuse/statutory rape that is. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, my point exactly? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure; that's why I questioned your point above. But it seems that you are now stating that what I stated in response to you is basically what you mean -- how the law defines "adult-child sex." Robert McClenon's point was that the law is not consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child, and that not all of these instances relate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, my point wasn't that the law is not consistent as to how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child. It is true that those laws vary between jurisdictions, but that was not my point. My point was that there is a significant difference between two types of definitions of a child, the legal definition, which varies between jurisdictions, and the distinction between a physiological child and a physiological adult. Therefore I took strong exception to the use of the term "pedophile" or "pedophilia", which refer to a psychological aberration, as having a major role in our child protection policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's what you meant, Robert McClenon, which I feel is clear from some of my other comments in this section. That's what I was trying to get across when I mentioned the law not being "consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child, and that not all of these instances relate to pedophilia." Because "there is a significant difference between two types of definitions of a child," this is a reason that "the law is not consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child." Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The policy at the moment doesn't attribute any law in any shape or form that I can see. In contrast see copyrights which is attributing the law. Laws & case law define what we should expect in court and we should tailor our content to comply with the law. If legally there is ambiguity, so should the policy. I also wish to see WMF legal remarks being attributed (in regards to age verification). If we go the moral route we will have different competing morals and that is not a route we should want to go. I am not just concered about the proposal above but what this may be a precedent for. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :You should also note that in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, relationships between 32-year-olds and 16-year-olds (of all gender combinations) are fully legal as long as there is no authority relationship (e.g. teacher-student). In other jurisdictions, a relationship between a 32-year-old and an 18-year-old that is fully legal in the US (afaik) is just as illegal as the 32-year-old/16-year-old relationship is in the US. In Angola (according to [1]) the age of consent is 12. For this reason it behoves us to be wary of cultural considerations when dealing with this issue. It could be argued that a Canadian endorsing their country's age of consent law (16) must be permablocked for advocating relationships that US law defines as inappropriate, even if they never mention this on-wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, it appears that you got point here. You can read a lot on the net about some girls in brazil aged 12-15 dating guys aged 18-25, they just think it's a good thing to have an older boyfriend, it's something rooted in the local culture apparently. They're just lucky the US FBI isn't recognized there or all of them would be in trouble, with policemen recording every conversation carried out by phone and on the net. Kord Kakurios (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
And by the way, do you know that there's an easy trick to find out some users' ages? Kord Kakurios (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that, but I would hope that attempting to discover the age of someone who has not publicly revealed it would be classed as WP:OUTING. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The message there is that the culturally respectful/sensitive response is to take the MOST conservative position, not the least. Likewise, the consequences of ignoring everyone's standards is to put the project in the position of advocacy that the standards are objectively to be discarded. It's that tell-tale word "endorse" that gives it all away: nobody needs to be endorsing anyone's standards, but it would simplify matters if standards were respected. Since they aren't, the effect is endorsement of no standards. That's hardly putting us in a position of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "The message there is that the culturally respectful/sensitive response is to take the MOST conservative position" by which logic we should exclude all images of people from the project. Or if that is too conservative for you, then we should require evidence that people are married heterosexuals at least 21 years old. The problem with this proposal is that it seeks to interpret subjective standards objectively, and regardless of what the standards are that is always going to result in drama when two people have different interpretations. Things like edit warring work because they are subjective standards interpreted subjectively with resulting punishment equally subjectively applied. Things like 1RR restrictions on named articles work because they are objective standards interpreted objectively. Because of the difficulty in defining pretty much every key term in the area of child protection, the standards need to be subjective and applied subjectively.
    Nobody needs to endorse anyone's standards on Wikipedia, however people do. This policy also applies to statements and actions off-wiki where many more people endorse various people's standards - and sometimes it is necessary to. What this proposal does is to treat all endorsements of anything less conservative than US law (regardless of what is endorsed, where it is endorsed or why it is endorsed) as equally to advocating adults engaging in violent penetrative sexual intercourse with babies. Subjectively it is easy to see that such activities are very different to advocating for the acceptance of consensual non-penetrative sexual activities between an 18-year-old and someone one month their junior, however objectively both are prohibited by the letter of the same US law. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There exists interpretations of Sharia law to ban images and art of any kind all-together in the name of decency and/or religion. Even then I am sure I can find even a more conservative position than that. There are people who practically want to ban education for being an "evil instrument of heretics" and demand only scripture be taught its place. This site has operated fine to date for over a decade without moral standards, what is prompting a change? Also moral standards is an oxymoron. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Then ignore moral standards and just delete all the self-produced porn. Not on any moral basis, but on the basis that we aren't a free web host, and we don't need these images. For example, we have 65+ images in the "ejaculating penis" category, and 35 more "penis in condom" on commons, and most of them aren't used on any Wikipedia, anywhere. We need very few of these images for our articles, and "ejactulating penis number 65" isn't adding any encyclopedic value that "ejaculating penis number 64" doesn't add. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only is that completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, it is also not entirely correct. We need more than one image of an ejaculating penis - different stages of ejaculation, different sizes, skin tones/ethnicities, different viewing angle, different situations (e.g. there is potential use for the contrasting of a medical image and a couple of different pornographic images in an article or book about pornography), with labels in different languages, etc. You also need to remember that Commons hosts images for all Wikimedia projects which includes projects other than encyclopaedias and just because an image is not encyclopaedic does not mean that it is not educational. I haven't looked at the 65 images on Commons to see whether all are useful, but if you see any there that you think aren't then nominate them for deletion over there with reference to their policies. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If we needed them, they'd be used somewhere. They aren't, and never will be. Gigs (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be true if all the projects were finished. The aren't, and saying they never will be is a pure crystal ball statement - for example File:Bombs print.jpg was uploaded in 2008 and remained entirely unused until I created a derivative version last month to illustrate the Motion lines article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • For what it is worth, there are only 31 images in Commons:Category:Penises in condoms, and that is only two more than Commons:Category:Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa category seems to be a lot more excessive than the "penises in condoms" category. The penis images do at least look a bit different, whereas the Mona Lisa ones are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Gigs, how do you know they aren't used? Have you considered offline uses or people browsing commons? Commons does not exclusively serve en.wikipedia. It is a free image wikt:repository. By very definition it will have multiple files on each topic. That is the project goal. Also why is this discussed here on Child protection? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sure they are used for... "non-educational purposes", quite often. It's being discussed here because there's been a directive to formulate a policy regarding age verification of the subjects of the low-quality amateur porn that commons seems to love. I suspect that if people keep arguing that "we need all the basement porn for... eh.. education", then a much more draconian directive will eventually result from the foundation's frustration with the matter. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • That is a perfectly fine usage actually. Someone can even start a for-profit low-quality amateur porn website using content from commons. Content on commons does not have to be strictly used with an educational purpose.
          • I work with artificial intelligence. Images such as pictures of genitalia or nude human bodies can be a useful learning set for medical research as there are variations from person to person. Such technology can allow early/automated identification of diseases, improve detection on scanners such as the ones on airports, parental control to keep kids away from internet porn as well as many other applications. This too is the purpose of commons.
          -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I've long realized that deletionism is first and foremost a failure of imagination, but not even I actually realized that someone with the TSA would really have a genuine need to sample the variation of human penises in order to better model the organ to detect the next testicle bomb. What is rather disturbing about that is that it implies that, however cartoonish its public output, the TSA scanner needs to recognize, know, and record to a permanent government database your precise penis size, shape, and characteristics... but I digress. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It was intended to be example uses of having so many photos on nudity etc to illustrate other uses as you need to have a variety in your data for your learning algorithm to work. This is mostly independent of your intended goal of detecting cancer, gun, bomb, etc... I do not believe TSA is using commons though, they have their own scanners for that! :p -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A minor technical point, which is based upon several discussions on Featured Articles objections regarding images[edit]

Considering the use of language on the page, one may reasonably misapprehend, especially if the viewer is a youth, that Wikipedia will also protect against "objectionable imagery", be it medical or even human anatomical imagery. As this may easily be a first stop and typically last stop by many, Wikimedia policy should be mentioned on such subjects. Examples are the image of a minor child afflicted with Smallpox, the female human breast, nipple, etc, male and female reproductive organs, various other disturbing images, such as imagery germane to understand the content, such as on various wars, the holocaust, etc. Content, context and understanding is primary in such instances, not being disgusted or disturbed, indeed, for horrific historical events, disturbed should be the normal reaction and that should be clearly understood to any objector.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be suggesting is that Wikipedia:Notcensored should be mentioned on the page. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, because Wikipedia:Notcensored already is mentioned on the page, in the "See also" section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
True, I'm suggesting making the point of Wikipedia:Notcensored more clear regarding imagery that may be considered upsetting. That would further clarify to some objectors that, while Wikimedia may protect against predators, it will not protect against unpleasant things in the real world. As I said, it would be a clarification of policy that reinforces itself in two policies that can be referenced, as twice I've viewed objections to "upsetting imagery" on Featured Articles from both parents and minor children.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Overkill definition of "personal information"[edit]

Seriously, Bielle? This is ridiculous.

CheckUsers regularly say what countries editors live in. Countless minor editors, myself included, post their home countries on their userpages. Unless you live in the Vatican City, there's virtually nothing bad that can happen to you by disclosing only your home country. (And if you do live in the Vatican, you have a whole mercenary force there to protect you, so you're probably fine.) I'm stunned I need to even make this argument, especially since, contrary to Bielle's edit-summary claims, there was never any consensus for this to begin with: The text was added unilaterally by BurritoBazooka less than 24 hours before I removed it.

While we're on the topic, I think the text BB added should be more nuanced when it comes to names and email addresses. If I tell you that my name's Tom Kelly and my email address is pinkampersand.wikimedia@gmail.com, there's essentially no way you can track me down based on that. So, I'd propose something like

Avoid giving anyone:

  • Your address, or an overly specific description of where you live
  • Your phone number
  • Any email address that is associated with you in real life. Many Wikipedians choose to make a Wikipedia-only address, or a general-purpose address for online activities.
  • Your name, if it's uncommon enough that you could be identified through it. (So, if your name's "John Schmidt", you can say that. If your name's "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt", you might want to leave out your middle names, and if your name's "Jingleheimer Schmidt", you probably want to avoid giving any name at all.)
When in doubt about how much information is too much, err on the side of caution.

If I were a new editor and I were to see a policy this broadly-worded, I'd assume it was some formality that I could ignore. By making unreasonable and unnecessary demands, we risk putting naïve young editors in greater danger, not less. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I don't understand, you are playing "silly buggers" with what was very straightforward text. I don't know why you think dilutions are advisable. I don't agree with your final sentence at all. This page is (and always has been) highly contentious. You should be looking to an RfC if you want to make changes. Bielle (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, (Je vous invite à me parler), try saying that after living in Saudi Arabia and making an edit critical of the King or of Islam. I can pick similar examples all over the world. Secret Police would be examining entries, do their level best to acquire IP information and tie it to the individual editing. That said, I'd add area/region and country to the sentence, just to make it clear to a young reader the hazards of revealing PII. I suggest you overreact and fail to consider all possible hazards that can befall a naive young person on the internet, which is a part of the big, wide and all too frequently nasty real world.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You did read the thing I wrote about how that text had been in the article for less than a day when I removed it, right? And about how there had been no consensus to include it? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I read the thing de novo, based from your diff, then from subsequent diffs. That is the basis for my comments, the earliest portion being prior to reading, but general input, the latter part after reading both the diff you provided and subsequent reading. I'm not an idiot, I only play one for my own advantage on being underestimated. I haven't played that part here, so kindly consider that I'm smarter than the average bread box. wink Wzrd1 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I was replying to Bielle. Your comment is a more nuanced one, and one I'll respond to when I have the energy. Sorry for any misunderstanding. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The proposed text by PinkAmpersand is too long winded. The point that the text should make is that Age/sex/location should not be given online.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What I initially inserted was supposed to be a very basic advisory to minors using Wikipedia. The basic guideline that my parents and every school I've been in has told me: Never give out your personal information to anyone[, except if you have met them face-to-face beforehand]. Personal information includes your [x/y/z]. It wasn't supposed to be specific, just give the general idea of what actions could be dangerous in everyday life. I felt the need to give a loose definition of what constitutes 'personal information' because many people (children) I have met think that they can't be traced or identified by things like their surname, email address, phone number, and area of residence; in combination with each other or other scraps of info collected passively and correlated by someone determined to find them.
If no consensus can be reached quickly regarding this tiny detail, I suggest we just remove it and get on with our lives. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the list and just added "identifying" to personal information as I think that is the fundamental concern and added an extra bit of language to cover our bases should someone be unsure as to what is meant.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The wording in this edit is too vague to give specific advice. The wording needs to give some idea of what should not be given out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Justification?[edit]

This page does not link to a justification or explanation for this very odd policy, nor is the justification given on this talk page. Given the tag and ludicrously imprecise wording I presume it is in place for legal/anti-reporter reasons rather than, say, a blanket ban on citing events suggesting that a relationship considered inappropriate in one culture is not harmful in another (and hence expressing that inappropriate relationships are not (always) harmful to children), but it isn't clear whether or not this is in place for arse-covering reasons or because the community actually does want to silence people because of their sexual preferences and censor anyone disagreeing with the mainstream view (has this policy ever been enforced?). Would I be banned if I listed myself as an advocate for lowering age of consent on my talk page? What of giving the name of my blog where I state there is little evidence for an inherent (as opposed to culture dependent) harm in sexual adult-child relationships? The above questions are hypothetical. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, sure they are. I'm not an admin that can push the ban button myself, but I'd work strenuously to see that an editor who advocated such views was removed from the project. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This issue has led to problems with WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTAFORUM in the past, when editors attempted to employ user and talk pages to promote their views in this area repeatedly, rather than adding reliably sourced material aimed at improving articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
But why ban off-wiki expression of such views? As the policy currently stands, if anybody finds a statement anywhere on the Internet (or outside of it) that has something to do with child sexual abuse, pedophilia, age of consent, etc., and that statement questions current social and scientific views on the topic, and the person who posted it is also believed to have a Wikipedia account, that person can be blocked for that even though they have not disrupted Wikipedia in any way, perhaps not even edited on the any of these topics. If an academic found out surprising things on the topic that contradict current views, and published them, should that academic be blocked from Wikipedia? What about people who then write about that academic's views on Wikipedia, while trying to be neutral (see e.g. Rind et al. controversy, or [2] - should "Rind et al." be blocked from Wikipedia, or should that Guardian reporter be blocked, or any of the researchers he cites, or any of the people commenting there?)?
Basically, this policy, or so I read it, is Wikipedia trying to discourage people from exercising their right to free speech, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is obviously not a forum, or a venue for advocacy/POV-pushing of any kind, or an experiment in unregulated free speech, but the outside world is supposed to be exactly that. Of course Wikipedia can block anybody for any or no reason whatsoever, but that doesn't mean it should do so, because that may have a chilling effect on the process of advancing research in that area (remember that absolutely everything should be doubted if one wants to achieve scientific progress) if people need to fear being blocked if they express their views, or question current mainstream views, on the amount and extent of harm done by child sexual abuse, in real life (off-wiki). Also, it seems very unusual that simple expression of certain views is considered to be advocacy in this policy. I also disagree with some other parts of this policy, but this thoughtcrime part is so horrible (and would be equally horrible if it concerned any other topic than pedophilia - I don't have particularly strong feelings about pedophilia in particular, just for avoidance of misunderstandings) that I don't even want to participate much in the English-language Wikipedia - creating chilling effects on controversial research is the opposite of neutrality. darkweasel94 (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
People expressing pro-paedophilia views, or self identifying as having paedophile tendencies getting banned from editing the site, is not as troublesome as knowing that such people are editing the site. If they want to edit a wiki there are other wikis elsewhere. John lilburne (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a time before this policy existed. It was a disaster. Not just in a PR sort of way like you are asserting, but internally for the editing community (see WP:RANDY). There was an organized, concerted effort to use wikipedia for pro-pedo advocacy, and actual convicted criminals and fugitives from justice were getting in on the action, leaving the administration no choice. Policies to keep in mind as well are WP:FRINGE.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Except, there is a question of when something constitutes advocacy and when it simply constitutes a legitimate evaluation of existing research, or perhaps a mistaken understanding of sexuality. Whether a sexual relationship between an adult and a child causes harm is not some black or white issue. A person does not have to believe something is actually harmful to believe it is immoral or should be illegal. Not all attempted murders are "harmful" as they never proceed to a point where harm is possible, but no one would seriously suggest expressing that view is the same as advocating attempted murder. A person can likewise believe not all adult-child sexual relationships are harmful, yet still view them as immoral and warranting legal action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"Whether a sexual relationship between an adult and a child causes harm is not some black or white issue." ? Oh really? Tarc (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes really. There are degrees to everything and many legitimate researchers would allow that some relationships may not cause any discernible harm as darkweasel noted, with the extent of discernible harm ranging from severe to light. As I said, that does not amount to saying any of those relationships are moral or should be legal. Equating such a position with advocacy and making it a ban-worthy offense is nonsensical.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
They haven't indef banned Erik Moeller so I guess that one can detect some degree of subtlety in the policy. John lilburne (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
When I asked these questions I was hoping for a link to a justification or explanation and answer to my questions, not a debate.
John, is there any reason that "reasoning" wouldn't also apply to any other hated group with like communists? (you aren't wanting a ban on them solely editing pedophilia topics or a ban on using the user emailing feature, but a blanket editing ban) Ian, as darkweasel94 points out, that reasoning would apply to any advocacy (and should thus be banned under a general anti-advocacy policy) and does not apply to the portion saying that off-site advocacy or identification results in a banning. darkweasel94 brings up an interesting point, is Bruce Rind blocked at this time? Should he be?
It is more or less certain that there are chilling effects at work in our society preventing discussion, questioning and research on this topic, despite it being far from a settled question (there have been a few societies with adult-child sexual interaction and the research is far from conclusive either way). I am dismayed to find that this is a policy with some support here rather than an attempt to cover against possible media attacks. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Legitimus, or somebody else who agrees with that position: Can you explain why, to minimize disruption to Wikipedia, it is a necessary or useful measure to block people for expressing, or even advocating for, certain views outside of Wikipedia? Have there been no similar campaigns of POV-pushing for other fringe points of view? If there have been, why is there not a ban against expressing those off-wiki? darkweasel94 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure but I must emphasize that I did not make this policy nor advocate for the provisions it contains (I was never an admin). I cannot claim to understand why off-wiki behavior was included, though I can understand why it is at least weighed as evidence when a user us behaving in a disruptive manner. I know of one instance where there was a user that was well known in the online pedophile community and there was easily locatable evidence (including matching photographs of his face), but generally refrained from advocacy on Wikipedia. However, he frequently would engage in weasel-lish commenting or edits on topics related to sex with children, but would artfully tip-toe around saying anything overt. I had mixed feelings about his blocking, because he was a good editor in unrelated topics, but also was on record off-wiki as saying he preferred 8 year old girls. I will say that from a PR perspective, WP was already under fire in the media for being a haven for pedophiles, and so this may have been part of an effort to restore faith.
There are certainly other fringe views/movements that have been banned from wikipedia after repeated problems with misbehavior, notably this one: [3] Legitimus (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocking actual (suspected or self-identified) pedophiles is a different matter - I have an opinion on that too but now I think we're talking mainly about blocking people who simply express opinions off-wiki but don't claim to be pedophiles themselves. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have never once seen a block instituted where the user only expressed opinions, in no way identified themselves as a pedophile, and had zero on-wiki bad behavior. And I say that as someone who's been monitoring this topic for 7 years. I even interacted with a user who many strongly believe was Bruce Ring himself; he was only blocked after months of being a massive blowhard and promoting his paper in underhanded ways.Legitimus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
If that horrible part isn't actually enforced, then why even have it? This is about as bad as enforcing it, because then it creates unjustified fears of expressing opinions on the topic. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add that part (or any other part) nor do I have any authority over this policy, so can't really answer. All I can do is report observations and speculate. A quick check of this talk's archive will show versions of this same conversation over and over. It's repeatedly brought up by users that, let's face it, are pedos who are pissed they can't push their agenda, free-speech nuts who are afraid of unintended consequences that never actually happen, and the former posing as the latter.Legitimus (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that you didn't make this policy - it was a general question and I didn't expect you in particular to answer. :) I'm happy to be a "free-speech nut" applying Murphy's law. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
What of Contrarians? And the strict skeptics who think wikipedia should not act as if the facts regarding the whole adult-child sexual interaction thing have been settled (hence NPOV)?
Regardless, no one was able to give a quick answer to my questions. Nor has any link to a justification been given. From this it should be obvious both that the Child Protection page is unclear, needing rigor and clarification, and that the policy is not adequately justified or thought out. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Legitimus, that is the blocking of an institution rather than a sexual orientation or anyone holding particular beliefs. Was the ban on any editing or just editing related to subjects of interest to the Church of Scientology? 86.26.236.107 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ARBSCI - all Scientology IPs were blocked. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This policy was written because for years the community was disrupted by on site discussions about whether someone should be banned for advocating adult-child sexual relationships. It was not uncommon for an editor to let it be known that they were participating in this type of advocacy website, and this would cause disruption on Wikipedia. Additionally, this type if on site discussion about another member of the community is not condoned because for the most part the only editors who didn't mind it were the people who welcomed the opportunity to bring the discussion to Wikipedia because they were advocates. So, while it may see like it is attempting to be thought police, the policy was written to resolve a long standing problem dealing with advocates who were looking for a forum to promote their pov. A point of view that causes serious disruption in the community when the topic is raised about another editor. Sydney Poore/ FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote[edit]

I know this isn't fully protected, but I assume BOLD doesn't apply to such a "policy with legal considerations"...

I think the hatnote needs a better template; "Not to be confused with child protection" ought to be reworded to something like "For the encyclopedia article, see child protection" to be less confusing. Or do we really need the hatnote at all? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
+1 for losing the hatnote, it isn't really necessary here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)



I don't think that there is any need for pedophiles to disclosure themselves, but don't you think that this policy anyway is somewhat discriminating to pedophiles and not neutral? This policy contain a stright statment that pedophiles is dangerous to children, what is in my opinion is forced by mass media stereotypes, and not in any kind scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.64.53 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 International child pornography investigation[edit]

Could any interested parties please review edits at 2013 International child pornography investigation, diff is here. The edits have, for example, altered text from: " .. X children were rescued" to read ".. X children were stated to have been 'rescued.' ". edits underlined

Note that I created this page. Just need a second opinion. If there is a better venue, please advise. Regards, 220 of Borg 00:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)