Wikipedia talk:Here to build an encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Title and other sections[edit]

  • Is the page name able to be improved?
  • Is a "See also" section needed?
  • Categories?

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between build, create and maintain. Regretfully many editors [who?] seem to be unable to realise that writing an article does not actually equal building an enyclopedia .... So I'd suggest you define "build" a bit better. Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A good point, but I think it may be covered. The "Purpose" section defines it as "a user is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes that may improve these", not just "writing an article".
The section "Building an encyclopedia" suggests that if there is a question whether a user is here to build an encyclopedia, possible indications include "a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedic content... a wide range of interests... substantive edits/article writing or other significant activities... constructive improvements to the processes", along with respect for core editing standards, limited focus on non-encyclopedic activities, and learning/improvement.
As such I don't think there is much chance of the misunderstanding you describe happening. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ant Colony (a potential proposed policy page - perhaps...)[edit]

A simplistic title, but building an encyclopedia can be analogous to making an ant nest - worker ants (and especially soldier ants) perform some tasks that superficially do not appear to be directly targeted toward building the colony; but it would be a mistake to consider them "not there to build a colony".

Since online encyclopedia's (um... the one I am familiar with, anyhoo) are very much more complex than ant colonies, and there are many roles and activities that do not appear to be directly concerned with article content creation, there needs to be an understanding that there needs to be very fine judgement over what may help toward the building of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not and have never been fact factories, where the majority is employed in churning out paragraphs of information with a little direction provided by functionaries and publishers, until... well, here and now in fact. However, Wikipedia is two potentially opposed concepts; a project in which content is provided by a potentially huge editorship, dwarfing the resources available to manage it in a traditional manner, and an expanding entity where the contribution demographic may perhaps be evolving into different constituent parts. Lastly, and this is where it gets tricky, the maintenance (and even concept) of an online open editing encyclopedia is itself simply an experimental model being run in real time; the rules are being created, criticised, discarded/confirmed, and endlessly debated even as the encyclopedia is being written, reviewed and read. "Building the encyclopedia" is not just a value judgement, but one which changes, incrementally, each day. Any discussion regarding what, or who, is not here to build an encyclopedia should recognise that the questioning or even opposition in respect of those who are recognised as being here to build an encyclopedia, or activities that are not considered as directly encyclopedia building, are not automatically detrimental to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Llywrch[edit]

I'm troubled by the "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" section. While this was intended as a selection of examples of the detrimental behavior this concept is aimed at, I worry that should this become policy, these will be used a specific points to ban given people -- or remove content contributed in good faith. Yes, there are people who edit Wikipedia in specific areas to push their agenda; but there are also people who join Wikipedia to make a few edits, contribute a specific chunk of material, participate in a single discussion -- then either leave or fall silent once their work is done. We can intuit that their intent to participate was to improve Wikipedia, but the inevitable wikilawyering allows one party to remove the material because the person who contributed "Was not here to build an encyclopedia". Maybe the solution is to make this an essay, rather than policy (just because someone presents a persuasive argument does not mean it needs to be formally added to policy for people to follow it); or to state that this is not a reason by itself to remove content. (If that isn't clear, that's because it's late in my time zone & I should have been in bed a couple of hours ago.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When persistent counterproductive behavior becomes disruptive then by all means throw the book at them, but a sweeping policy expressed in terms of motivations and intentions is not a good idea. I think administrative and arbitrative mentions of the principle ought to be interpreted as summary remarks about disruption. As a policy it would give license to assume bad faith whenever something seems unconstructive. An essay discussing the first pillar in relation to behaviors that are deprecated in various policies is fine. It may be helpful for prompting someone to stop and think about what they are doing in relation to what Wikipedia is doing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't wish to see this page be policy, and would oppose it as such. It's "things to bear in mind", rather than a hard line on who may or may not do what. But as an expression that is very widely used regardless, and a number of behaviors that probably are beneficial to cover, it's helpful to give a guideline on it. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive as rejected[edit]

Consensus appears to be leaning toward nixing this proposal as rejected. I agree with the sentiments above that it takes a lot of worker ants to keep the colony going, and each individual one may have no appearance of being constructive. Listing what Wikipedia is not is just a tad open ended. Apteva (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already have WP:NOT, but the purposes of that and this are very different. This, rather, appears to be an essay, and I'm unsure why the {{Draft proposal}} tag was ever added instead of just labeling it as such. The best solution, IMO, would be to just put the essay tag on, and leave it be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly useful essay, but probably not a guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Lifebaka, and by extension, I believe with llywrch, Peregrine and LHvU. I believe we have enough policies and guidelines to "bite" users with, and this appears to be simply an extension of "why you can't be part of our group". We have processes in place which adequately, (in my opinion anyway), deal with editors who are disruptive to the process. Be it AN boards, RFC, RFAR, blocks, or bans, the editors who show obvious signs of being counter-productive are dealt with on an individual basis; and I think adding another "solution" only adds another reason to search for problems. — Ched :  ?  07:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh, it may be just semantics, but I think it has a potential to explain what 5P does and does not look like today--not to chase people away or beat them over the head with, so much as a call to collaborate: "Are you here to help build an encyclopedia? Then let's get to it!" Of course, anything can be misused, which is why I started the "What 'not here to build an encyclopedia' is not" section. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I also have problems with this being a policy, but I could see it as a behavioural guideline if it's well written. Essay is fine for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed this essay in an attempt to make it less bitey, and given it the shortcut WP:HERE which is positive rather than negative. I'm not keen on the WP:NOTHERE bit, but it is worth discussing. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If a less established editor would have written this essay, would it have been put up immediately for deletion? I commend John for removing the "bitey" attack examples.
Reading this essay, I am struck at how it feels so uninviting, intolerant, and combative. The Not being here to build an encyclopedia section is particularly troubling. This section is so broad, that any editor can be targeted as "not here to build an encyclopedia".
I know many editors who started out having many of these traits, and have since then become more valuable and diverse editors. There is an essay about how we all start out as SPA's, which I am having trouble finding.
I am always loathe to put an article up for deletion, but maybe this essay is not ready for main space and should be moved to user space? Ikip (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The credit goes to SlimVirgin for removing the examples. I only softened the pagename. I think a lot of copy-editing is required before it is a "Wikipedia" essay. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


SlimVirgin has removed some examples that were in here, and it is probably better that they are kept out of the essay. However this essay seeks to enshrine "[Not] here to build an encyclopedia" as an acceptable phrase, and I think it is vital that we understand the prior use of this phrase if this essay is to remain in the main project namespace.

I've found another one.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three cheers for Slimvirign for removing those examples. This essay sounds less like an attack page now. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Actually, I liked "Not here to build an encyclopedia" as the title, but failing that, I would prefer "Building an encyclopedia" as the alternative title. What it's just been moved to splits the difference in a way that I don't find too compelling. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally liked the line: "Are you here to help build an encyclopedia? Then let's get to it!" . Positive, upbeat, and I thought had a touch of "we'll work together" implied. Rather "good form" I thought. — Ched :  ?  20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I think it would be pertinent, in the spirit of not biting, in the "What Not here to build an encyclopaedia is not" section to mention newcomers, who may initially not understand what building wikipedia requires. They need time to understand that it's not a battleground of ideas, that adding links to their organisations is spam rather than being helpful and so on. Perhaps a point saying "being NHTBAE takes time and effort; flailing newbies may not have made their minds up yet."VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this work for you? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I would like something a little stronger - a reference to WP:BITE or something like that. I just have a thing about newcomers being picked on when vandal hunters (typically more experienced editors) think they've found a prizeVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
Done. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Infopage vs Essay[edit]

Seems to me like the infopage description is appropriate. Should there have been discussion before it was changed back in March? --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that infopage is best. Violating "Here to build an encyclopedia" has led to people being indeffed, so it's more than someone's opinion. At any rate, this discussion is probably moot as demonstrated at the TfD for the infopage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not here to build an encyclopedia- trolling?[edit]

Should we consider trolling a reason for "not here to build an encyclopedia"? I am placing my idea here as bold edits to policy seem to be frowned upon. pcfan500 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

While the word "trolling" is not currently used, the act of trolling is covered in the existing text. --Versageek 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to build an encyclopedia[edit]

I want to build a dictionary or atlas or almanac or something. Help? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, first off welcome to Wikipedia! I would like to encourage you to create an account so that you can better enjoy Wikipedia and the other communities that are part of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is already a dictionary available that anyone can contribute to called Wiktionary which can be found at]. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 06:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets may be helpful. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


How is this not already labeled one of the founding principles of this project? It's *the* core concept, and people were banned for violating it like ten years ago. DreamGuy (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the essay itself says " It has been written at various times into the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and older versions of blocking policy." Ten years ago we had lots of various disarray in the policies. And since then there was lots of disagreement. AFAIK a similar fate is WP:CIVILITY. It is a policy, but I remember a strong resistance to put it into WP:BLOCKING. Currently it refers only to "gross incivility", but officially you cannot block for persistent petty pestering. Ask our resident feminists about that :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
While the idea of WP:NOTHERE to be blockable offense is sound and 100% with all these Pillars, the essay itself sucks miserably in certain places. I am advocating the turning it into a guideline after a major overhaul in order to make it uncontroversially actionable. For example, the item "Interest in gaining as many rights or "flags" as possible" was obviously written in an analogy with the stupid quest for "friends" and "likes" in social networks. But wikipedia only has so many flags, so they are hardly collectable "boyscout patches" per se. If wikipedia allows somebody to collect the "admin flag" just for lulz, then we have problems larger than this page. I can continue much more. But my point is that time is overdue for serious community attention to this page, since it is obviously important. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is essential to building an encyclopedia[edit]

In the essay, in what "Not being here to build is Not" includes:

Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms: A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively.

I think that this is too wishy-washy. Can someone who personally attacks repeatedly and gets banned really be considered to be here to build an encyclopedia, if WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia? To me, no. Can someone who is here to build occasionally slip up? Yes. So I'm certainly not advocating changing it to "anyone who has ever been warned or blocked is not here to build" and yes, different people have different degrees of difficulty in trying to fight off urges to be uncivil. But uncivil behavior even for a moment does not help build the encyclopedia, and someone who repeatedly is uncivil is thus not here to build. I recommend tightening this point substantially to:

Occasional lapses in conduct: Civility is essential to collaboratively creating a encyclopedia, and users who cannot be civil are not here to build the encyclopedia.This does not mean that a user who is not civil for a particular moment, or who expresses difficulty with being civil at times, could not in general be here to build the encyclopedia. Patterns of behavior rather than isolated moments are the key to understanding what a user is here to do.

The essay needs to balance the rights of editors who have trouble not attacking people with the rights of people who are being attacked for what they are doing for the encyclopedia, and at the moment, this point (but not the essay in general) seemed to me to get that balance wrong. Thanks, and of course, I welcome comments. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoring Brownie Points?[edit]

Could we add, "Trying to score brownie points"? E.g. some Muslims apparently believe they score brownie points with their deity by posting in Talk:Muhammed even though it has no effect on the article. Some people might edit to try to score brownie points with somebody without caring about their effect on the article. Another example of this is the article for Beautiful where some "Romeo" will put that beautiful is So-and-so. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It assumes bad faith in others. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


I have made a small update that might help everyone involved in our project. Check, reply and edit. Thank you. (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There were quite a few grammar mistakes, and the logic in some statements was becoming hard to follow. Excessive linking was also a distraction. Most importantly, I'm not quite sure how these additions make the essay more complete. The previous version seemed more concise and easier to read to me. Please discuss the additions/changes you are trying to make if you'd like to work on improving it. I'm sure with a few corrections, some of that info can be inserted if deemed necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The update is a 14 kilobyte detailing using existing policies (linked), it helps to regulate problems and confusion for novice users. Everything is in good intentions. A significant change made is under Review behavior as a whole (Line 48), it is made to make the existing guiding policy understandable, the short version looses its meaning and is faulty in logic (constructive edits=to avoid blocking=?->wrong interpretation) in terms of collaborative editing. An another update made is in Line 42 on regular templating process for promoting supportive environment (Non- WP:POOR and non- WP:HOSTILE) and to avoid overlooked confrontational language. (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, it's easy to overdo it with examples. Too much instruction leads to instruction creep; less is more. Also, your proposal still has issues. For example, you are attempting to add (in bold): "Dishonest and gaming behaviors: Gaming the system, socking, for gaining brownie points inside Wikipedia by supporting disruptive edits and other forms of editorial dishonesty". This line reads much better without your addition. In another area, you are changing "beautiful" to "beautification". Why exactly? These aren't the only problems, but they're the ones that stick out the most. You may have good intentions, but I still don't follow the logic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It all looks good I have added minor tweaks to improve the content. To me the changes helps to consolidate the policy with current behavioral patterns that gets dragged to admin attention and the logic is seems to be aligned with cross-linked principles, it can help any newcomers to have a better understanding. An example I can see is editing the name of one's girlfriend or boyfriend into the article for "beautiful" is confusing maybe what the previous editor meant is beautification of their girlfriend or boyfriends article, related to COI or sockpuppet...etc. I feel the logic here is incrementalism and preference for consolidating through simplicity due to its infallibility and testability rather than something that could be only understood by regulars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I also do not see the change as beneficial. Not every gaming behavior needs to be written down; and stating "initiating blocks and page protections with lies" seems to be a shot against someone who did this IP user wrong in their eyes at some point. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Every behaviors couldn't be possibly tagged, but the added one is close to the policy than anything. But yes it could be equally interpreted for possible personal connection. (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you put it in there, are you saying that there is a connection? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kept the fix, 3 - 4 common types are enough...It would be nice if someone can provide examples from real incidents without pinpointing anyone. (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

First, it's not a "small update". Overall, I think the article is better without it. I've removed some of the worst of it. I suggest removing the rest, then restoring bits piecemeal if others think they are improvements. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Most problems arise from tangential loopholes of existing guidelines, the worst styles or possible bad faith actions removed is just 2-3 types of identifiable problems consistent with existing guidelines. If mentioning it here reduces the load and stress @ noticeboards it is an improvement at least in long-term aspect for not repeating the same response or guidance (which might be tiring...). Overall, it is an improvement, especially helps newbies - I wish I had seen in this manner when I started out. (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you be specific? Are you referring to maybe findings and actions in ArbCom proceedings, or alternatively just a general impression from a casual editor that has yet to create an account? --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Criminal views"[edit]

It's hard to know where to begin with this nonsense. I removed part of the statement, "it is possible for someone to hold extreme, even criminal views". Extreme? Of course. Criminal? No. Not possible. Not at all. Jclemens reverted, claiming, "yes, pro-pedophile viewpoints are outlawed". Not so, not that I can tell. The existence of vile groups like NAMBLA certainly seem to insist otherwise. I do not see how it is at all possible for a person to hold "criminal views". Holocaust-denial is illegal in many European countries. There's no crime in refusing to believe the Holocaust happened. It's ignorant. It borders on bat shit insanity, but if someone chooses to believe that, there's no law against it. Publicly denying the Holocaust is a crime, akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. With pedophilia, I'm not seeing how it even rises to that level. We even have an article about organizations that openly promote pedophilia. If it isn't a crime to publicly espouse pedophila, how in world could it possibly be a crime to privately hold these views, disgusting as they may be? Anyone openly pro-pedophilia is forbidden to edit here, and quite rightfully so. Perhaps this is what Jclemens meant with his erroneous statement about pro-pedophile viewpoints being outlawed. THE EDIT I MADE DID NOT IN ANY WAY SUGGEST THAT PEDOPHILES ARE WELCOME HERE. (In 7 years here, that is, I believe, only the second time I have "yelled"; my apologies for breach of etiquette, but I felt it egregiously exigent to emphasize.) I made a simple edit to change a statement that was clearly and plainly non-factual. Regarding these so-called criminal views, this essay said, "a person can hold criminal views and still be here to build an encyclopedia (my emphasis)". Assuming such criminal views actually exist, Jclemens' leap to pedophila, and bullshit invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT is even more absurd if this essay claims such people may "still be here to build an encyclopedia". WP:CHILDPROTECT explicitly says that pedophiles and their sycophants are strictly forbidden from editing here. Again, amen to that rule! I'm sorry this has become TLDR, but it needed to be said. I have been blocked for a month for refusing to redact my stated opinion about a certain pedophile. I have experienced personal family tragedy because of pederasty (an important distinction, but one for another day). I have witnessed the unspeakable horror inflicted upon a child at the hands of one of these vile predators. I made a benign edit to this page. His revert was inaccurate, his edit-summary was untrue, and his invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT was sanctimonious and self-serving. Jclemens arrived at my talk page, still on his high horse, and proceeded to accuse me of "promoting pedophila on Wikipedia". His effrontery simply beggars belief. I have a two-word response for him, and it applies equally to the horse in on which he rode. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to work out what's going on so let me post the different versions I can see (with the differences in bold):
  1. A user may have extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". (original text)
  2. A user may have extreme views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". (a recent attempted edit)
  3. A user may publicly espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". (current text at 22:45, 29 May 2017)
I do not understand the recent bickering about removing "or even criminal"—apparently there is some WP:CHILDPROTECT background that I am not familiar with. I cannot see the connection because the text in question is saying that a person with criminal views can be an editor, whereas anyone who is known to view pedophilia in a favorable light is instantly indeffed in accord with WP:CHILDPROTECT. Let's not debate the merits of that here—it's just how things are.
I cannot see any reason to change the original text (#1). The original text is saying that an editor could, for example, make a brief statement on their user page saying they supported X, where X is some activity that would be regarded as criminal in the jurisdiction applicable to that user, or possibly in the jurisdiction applicable to anyone reading X on the user's page. For example, X might be "abortion" or "satanism" or "injecting heroin" or many other things. Yet, the editor may be fully compliant with WP:HERE, and not subject to any sanctions.
Version #3 is not desirable. I understand the logical distinction that no one can know what views someone really has—all we can go on is what they publicly espouse (in words or actions). Yet publicly espouse can be read as an invitation to soapbox at enwiki, but an editor who made a habit of mentioning that they favored X at enwiki would, if done too enthusiastically, definitely fail WP:HERE. Even someone who does useful work could end up indeffed if they spent too much time pushing a view not relevant for building the encyclopedia.
Why does the original text need to be changed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it implies the thought-police of Orwellian fiction are real. Anyone found to support pedophilia is immediately thrown the hell off of this site, and rightfully so. The notion that my edit did even the slightest thing to give any impression otherwise is preposterous. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not the right place to discuss what one editor may have implied about another. What matters is whether WP:HERE should be changed from #1 above and I'm wondering why that text needs a change. The point of mentioning "criminal" is that, with rare exceptions, the community does not care what views an editor has—even people with criminal views would be welcomed as editors provided they did useful work and did not push their views here. My reading of the text is that "criminal" is intended to tell people that it would be a mistake to suggest someone is NOTHERE because they had a criminal view. It is only on-wiki behavior that counts with regard to HERE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a criminal view. There is only criminal behavior. In certain rare cases, openly advocating a viewpoint is sufficient to rise to the level of a criminal offense. In no case whatsoever is it illegal to privately hold a viewpoint, no matter how execrable it may be. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but I regard "criminal views" as a shorthand meaning "views supporting actions which would be criminal if performed somewhere, under some circumstances". I don't have a welded-on opinion regarding the wording, but I do see the criminal text as emphasizing the point that editors are judged by what they do on-wiki, not by whatever opinions they may have expressed (providing those views are not pushed on-wiki). Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As I noted, I amended my revert to retain the word "criminal" in the text. If "publicly espouse" isn't the best choice, it could be changed to "advocate", "promote", or something else. My only objection is to the implication of thought-crime. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
My understanding mirrors what Johnuniq articulates. Of course thoughts themselves aren't crimes--one wonders that that ever need be said--but advocating for criminal actions, or in the specific CHILDPROTECT cases, changes to laws through due process, is a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine. If the essay had read that way I wouldn't have changed anything. "Advocating" views is quite different from "holding" them. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are, and we don't want any advocating in wikipedia, neither criminal nor benign. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The clause is important in that it makes it clear that we don't ban people on sight, but do if they start espousing such views. As a former arbitrator, I am aware of cases where editors who have put forth pro-pedo views elsewhere have worked diligently and constructively on Wikipedia without any hint of that in their edits here... and that's about all the detail I can give on that topic. I'm sorry to hear you've been personally affected by the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)