Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

New section

1. Someone above says "Unless you're a pedophile, you don't have anything to worry about" with regards to this policy. Okay, so why not advocate sending out the firing squads? If you're not a pedophile, you've got nothing to worry about, right . . . ?

2. There is a problem with this policy that I haven't seen others mention. The policy is, editor A says "I'm a pedophile". Then B blocks him. It seems to me that not everyone knows about all of Wikipedia's policies. I myself (who used to use a proper account here, before life got too busy) never knew about this policy before this week. Are there any other situations where people are automatically indefinitely blocked on sight for something, rather than just a warning?

91.110.250.204 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The other block-on-sight situation is if you make legal threats, but at least with those, you can be unblocked if you withdraw the threats. If you accidentally self-identify, the only way you can return to editing Wikipedia is by creating a new account and hoping nobody finds out. --Carnildo (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unless you're X, you don't have anything to worry about" always reminds me of "First they came...". Anomie ⚔ 02:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah, well... my assessment of acts like this (both on wikipedia and in the 'real' world) is that they are always dominated at first by heavily reactionary individuals. this will be an incitement to witchhunts for a few weeks/months, but after that it will settle down to a few relatively even-tempered admins keeping their eye out for problematic behavior, and the ideological problem will resolve itself. Things can only be in an uproar for just so long, if you know what I mean. --Ludwigs2 02:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of the same thing, Anomie, but . . . this is not real life, this is a website. We diminish the tragedy of those lives caught up in the Holocaust by claiming that banning pedophiles from Wikipedia is similar in any way but the most superficial. There has been, for the three years I have been here, a consistent blocking of identified pedophiles, and not necessarily based on on-site behaviour. I agree, Ludwigs, that the uproars wax and wane. Bielle (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not trying to compare anything to the Holocaust. I just find folly in any argument of the form "Unless you're X, you don't have anything to worry about". Anomie ⚔ 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This poem is also poignantly relevant. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest some perspective? "Poignantly relevant" might be best reserved for real-life matters. This wouldn't even be a good melodrama. Bielle (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Wikipedia is a real-life project (apparently we're kind of a big deal) and what we do here has significant real-life impact, both positive and negative. I'm sure I don't need to cite concrete examples.

Am I suggesting that people are going to be hanged because of some Wikipedia policy? Certainly not, and it would take a severely simplistic reading of my comment to infer as much. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at how these kinds of discriminatory policies have been used and critiqued in the past, and carefully consider that very little good has ever come of them. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We're going round in circles on this again, and rehashing the debate on Jimbo's talk page. People who have been blocked by ArbCom for pedophile activity on Wikipedia have usually been way over the line. They have used their talk pages in ways that left little to the imagination. People who do this will be blocked, and comparisons with the Holocaust or Nazi Germany look like Godwin's law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So let's stick to blocking people who are way over the line, instead of drafting panic-fueled, overreaching, zero-tolerance policies with all kinds of chilling effects? TotientDragooned (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be a case for dropping the "self-identifying" part if it kept everyone happy, and provided that ArbCom is allowed to use its discretion on what is unacceptable use of an account. As a rule, admissions of past criminal offences etc should not be made in Wikipedia project space. If a person did this in relation to a pedophile offence, they would be blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, despite my very vocal opposition of the policy as currently written, I actually support blocking editors whose self-identification as a pedophile is clear-cut disruption. It's the borderline cases (an editor otherwise in good standing being outed, "sleuthed," or somehow letting slip they're a pedophile (ignoring for the moment the extensive arguments about how this might happen in a way whose intent is not obviously disruptive); Roman Polanski registering and editing some film-related articles; an editor otherwise in good standing raising reasonable concerns about NPOV on pedophilia-related articles; etc) that bother me and make me strongly oppose a zero-tolerance stance. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be any room for compromise on this issue, even though I believe there's common ground that would both meet our goals of protecting children from predators and that 90% of editors would agree on. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski is an an interesting case. Although he clearly has a taste for underage girls, and pled out to having sex with a minor, he is to my mind right on the cusp of let's say non-abhorrent behaviour (I won't say acceptable, because I think not many would call it that). The girl in the case was 13, the youngest age of consent in the Western world (that I'm familiar with) is or was 14, so Polanski's clearly on that borderline. Someone who wants to have sex with a nine year old is over the line, I would guess not acceptable to most, and abhorrent to many. There will be times when its a judgement call - perhaps we would break this cycle by looking at how a judgement call might be made, and who would make it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I would characterize his behavior as very clearly abhorrent. Polanski was 44 years old at the time -- and this was a 13 year old child. He groomed her and plied her with quaaludes and alcohol, so even if she had the maturity and cognitive development to effectually consent, Polanski overcame that with the use of mind-altering disinhibitors (also a criminal act in itself). Polanski is a child rapist, a child molestor, a predator without any doubt. There is no judgment call to be made here and if Roman Polanski showed up here, I would hope to goodness that he would be banned on sight. I imagine his presence would be quite disruptive. (I have rather strong opinions about this, but I am at a loss as to how this can be seen as anything other than abhorrent). Minor4th • talk 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Polanski is a very interesting and relevant case. He unquestionably raped a 13-year-old girl and certainly fits the definition of "known pedophile" as the term seems to be used here. On the other hand, not to excuse or dismiss his crimes, but there have never been any reports that he has done such a thing to anyone else. There is apparently no evidence that he poses any kind of ongoing risk to anyone. And yet, were he to show up here to edit film articles -- one of the preeminent filmmakers in the world -- we would apparently ban him on sight from Wikipedia on the grounds that he might be scheming to use the "email this user" function to find kids to molest. What an extraordinary and bizarre situation. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Polanski's acts were a serious crime, generally abhorrent, and that his presence here could pose a significant risk to children. That said, he could have an account here now. No public library or shopping mall has a policy in place to keep him out of their public toilets. That's what it means to be a public place. And we should allow his productive contributions here to be made openly just as we allow films attributed to him to be shown at the cinema. That's what it means to value freedom of speech, even when we find fault with the speaker. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, let me state the obvious (as painful as that might be for all concerned...). If someone is engaged in overt pedophile-related activities on wikipedia, they are going to be blocked (hopefully sooner rather than later, and rightfully so). That will happen regardless of this article; every decent editor would insist on it, and pure community consensus would drive a community ban. If an editor is not doing anything overtly pedophiliac on wikipedia, then I would hope s/he would not be blocked or banned because of some overly-zealous campaign by other editors. I don't like that thought that we might end up punishing editors on mere suspicion.

Like it or not, If Charles Manson wanted to come and edit wikipedia we don't really have grounds to tell him not to, so long as he is is not trying to build a new family and convince people to engage in murder. Part of being the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit' involves allowing anyone to edit, so long as they are serious and stick to wikipedia principles. this article is a good thing in that it specifies that that wikipedia wants to protect children as best it can. so long as people respect that, we should let them be. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to question any policy by looking at borderline cases, eg should a person be given a speeding ticket for travelling at 30.0001mph in a 30mph zone? If a person said without any prompting on their talk page "I am a pedophile", or admitted to convictions in this area in the past, they should be blocked. It is too unrelated to article improvement to do this, and raises legal and ethical issues for the site, such as the use of "email this user" discussed elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a statement of a principle, not a suicide pact. If you cannot find a good reason to keep Charles Manson to edit, then perhaps you should reexamine whether we are an encyclopedia or a social experiment. --B (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The founding and ongoing principle is that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but we routinely remove uesrs from that remit, if they are disruptive and for many other reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a block for "self-identifying" as a pedophile. Making a statement of this kind would show poor judgment, and permanently undermine community trust in the account, particularly the ability to use "email this user" wisely. It would hand Wikipedia a range of legal and ethical dilemmas that it could well do without, and have minimal encyclopedic value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've been trying to point out, though, there's a whole range of things that could be considered "self-identifying" that don't involve making a clear declarative statement on-wiki. It's those cases that I and others find problematic, while this policy's proponents suggest it won't be an issue. If it won't be an issue, why the reluctance to clarify the policy's wording? Powers ^T 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, there's too much sensationalism and paranoia regarding this disruptive policy. This "block on sight" principle fails to assess individual contributors' potential and violates WP:AGF. We need to block for disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and COI promotion, not one's personal traits. I would welcome Polanski to edit here with open arms, as long as he stays away from his own article, articles about the FBI, or others that he could not edit without a bias. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" is the directive for interacting with editors that we disagree with. Being a pedophile in no way affects ones ability to write about, say Television or Pottery so there's no problems with letting a pedophiles edit them. Them From Space 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's a problem. They can contact children via the "e-mail this user" function. Your description of pedophilia as a simple "disagreement" is quite disturbing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Like most of the arguments here, we have been through this before. A self-identified pedophile might turn Television or Pottery into a Featured Article, but a) there is no need to self-identify as a pedophile to do this and b) Wikipedia would be taking an enormous legal and ethical risk by allowing a person to have a user account after a statement of this kind. I would not like to have to explain to a judge why a Wikipedia editor who contacted a minor through "email this user" and then committed an offence was given a free run after openly admitting to being a pedophile. As stated many times before, Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, democracy or a social experiment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not an excersize in mass-hysteria or parenting. Putting a harsh ban on self-identified pedophiles will only drive any with the guts to admit this underground, where they will be all-the-more free to abuse our email policy. Abusing our email in any circumstances is a blockworthy offense, so any editors who do this for any reason shouldn't edit here. But we make those judgements after the fact; we don't assume bad faith that certain groups of editors will automatically abuse our structure. I fail to see how our preexisting policies don't adequately cover all possible scenarios for abuse without lobbing a discriminatory catchall on top of them. For me pedophilia is, and only is, a moral disagreement, and moral disagreements have no place in a collegial editing atmosphere. Them From Space 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you have a flawed view of reality, which puts children in danger. I hope you realize that there are labels that wikipedia users are not able to affix to themselves, including Antisemitism, Jihadism, Nazism and for practical real world consequences, Pedophilia. To knowingly provide access for a pedophile to the e-mail of children, is negligent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All of them are welcome to edit in my book, until they become disruptive. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even people that you don't like. Them From Space 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully your book is not wikipedia policy because it would put children in danger.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't believe that only people with the same or similar moral and ethical standpoint as you should be allowed to be heard? _→AzaToth 01:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for activism, especially pedophile activism for the real world consequences. I hope that by using the term "heard", you are not advocating pedophile activism, or the ability of pedophiles to contact children via e-mail.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated this as policy, so there are WP:CONEXCEPT issues and there is little point in debating it endlessly in the hope of finding a consensus. In any case, Wikipedia would have to protect itself against lawsuits by blocking users who openly admitted to being pedophiles. There is no paranoia here, or violation of free speech.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that argument, but I would like to hear Jimbo & C:o to confirm that protection from lawsuits is a reason for blocking. _→AzaToth 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you there didn't accuse me of advocating pedophilia.... _→AzaToth 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like once again to point out that users can easily disable the option to receive e-mails; if this is a main basis for this policy, perhaps self-identified children should be required to disable the feature or be blocked. This policy is reactionary, overly broad, and creepy. I'm also not sure if anyone if actually supporting activism since this goes counter to WP:NOT; however, the zero tolerance is overreaching because it would lead to situation such as permanently blocking an otherwise good editor who adds information about treatment and inadvertently self-identifies in an edit summary by nothing that they learned abut in therapy. Note that changing the term "pedophile" to "sexual predator" largely removes this bias against a psychiatric condition. Much of what this policy is trying to accomplish can be derived from existing policies if it were sprinkled with a little assumption of good faith. Remaining inconsistencies should be explained, such as which laws this abides or why this circumstance requires special treatment. While there are good intentions arguing for the policy, it is hard to shake the feeling that this policy is a reaction to the media and concerned more with saving face than protecting children; clarification and accompanying rationale would help to alleviate concerns that a similar policy will be unilaterally created when the media finds a new problem with Wikipedia. —Ost (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RevDelete vs Oversight for accusations of paedophilia.

The policy currently reads

Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel.

My understanding of the relevant policies and principles is that where privacy and libel issues are involved with particular revisions, the appropriate course of action is to RevDelete (as an administrative action) in the interim and then request suppression (from somebody with the Oversight permission) to prevent visibility even to administrators. I'm not entirely sure the policy is currently clear in this regard.

If the intention is that allegations of paedophilia be removed by standard RevDelete (i.e. still visible to administrators), should this be the case? Shouldn't these potentially libellous accusations be treated in the same way as serious violations of the biographies of living people policy or outing (with Oversight)?
If the intention is that allegations of paedophilia be suppressed by an Oversighter, should the policy be clarified to reflect this?

It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, but for the moment I'm a little confused, and I think some clarification might be warranted. -- Lear's Fool 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In practice, the RevDelete button seems to be being used to prevent teh dramahs, rather than for any kind of privacy issue. Personally, I don't think one editor snapping "you're a bloody paedophile" at another editor does raise any issues for the project (any libel would have to be taken up with the posting editor), but it does cause a kerfuffle(if the other user is innocent of offence, they tend to take it REALLY badly), and the last thing we need is an ANI report, with 20 editors weighing in on each side. I'm personally not convinced that all such require RevDel, although they would all require removing from the page. Only if the comment is actual WP:OUTING (under the proper definition - someone has gone looking for evidence to find the real life identity of an anonymous Wikipedia editor - not the bogus usage it sometimes gets) would the comment need both RD and oversighting. My opinion anyway.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No great problems with the wording in the policy, as long as any edit looking for lulz is removed quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that stopping "teh dramahs" is a good excuse to avoid an open and thorough process on ANI or to remove it from the public archive. To me, this encapsulates the Chinese government's error of trying to "save face" by avoiding public controversy. To quote a line from many a public protest, "This is what democracy looks like." Trying to solve these controversies without a messy discussion for the archives is like trying to run a town without those messy dumpsters and garbage trucks. You know it will all pile up someplace - the question is whether you can give it an easy disposition. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo mandated a pedophile protection policy - blocks against accusers are NOT a good idea and I think we deserve a vote about it

This policy has grown and grown to ban accusations that other editors are pedophiles: "Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment or consensus... Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them."

I think that this is now very much the worst thing in this whole policy. Pedophiles are banned only from self-identifying, but members of the Wikipedia community are banned from making any accusations or suggestions, based not just on "libel" (because that might be bogus) but based on an undefined notion of "privacy" which might, by the same principle, be used to prohibit many other sorts of allegations in the future.

I don't think it is at all right that if Soccer Mom logs into Wikipedia and sees "OMG this guy says he's a pedophile!" and starts squawking on it at the article talk page or the Village Pump, that she should get blocked for doing so, or treated as if she did something wrong. I don't think we can expect editors to know about this obscure policy before they react to an apparent pedophile. That could get Wikipedia some bad press coverage, and not so undeserved this time. In the draft I proposed much earlier,[1] I suggested this whole progress should be wide open, staying close to the actual evidence. I don't think there's any "right to privacy" that should prohibit people from listing the diffs that an editor makes, or drawing whatever conclusion they feel is reasonable based on this content. Like it says in the box, "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I do feel it is acceptable to require administrators, as expert users, to avoid loaded language in edit summaries or comments on the talk pages of blocked users.

I think that this part of the policy is especially objectionable because the accusations against specific users have been the object of an intense stealth canvassing operation done by WikiSposure", which has targeted at least one entirely innocent person, a WMF employee. We should not leave the public discussion of such cases entirely to outside organizations with unknown agendas. I don't even know whether linking to the WikiSposure page, as I've done several times above, would now be considered a violation of the policy. (or more pointedly, linking to one of the elaborate dossiers they've created about certain Wikipedia editors) I also don't know whether citing an ANI thread in this context is a violation of this policy, as was done above with the section [[2]], which identifies a specific username.

I know that Jimbo has said that the pedophile ban is policy that he has imposed, but I don't recall him giving any such status for a pedophile protection policy! If we have the freedom to decide on this matter, then I say a community vote should be required before any ban on accusations by other editors, or any proposal to expand RevDelete beyond its current status; further, this prohibition seems within the purview of WP:CIVIL and people there should be brought into this discussion and vote. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concern (see my notes above) ought to be to keep down teh dramahs. There will be times when "you're a ficking pedo, you!" will be an unacceptable personal attack, there will be times when there will be attempts at public outing, and there will be times when a quiet contributor has to tell someone "oh my god, I think this guy is a child abuser". I had links I put up to Wikisposure oversighted, and people threaten me with a block for that long (and badly handled by me) discourse with JMilburn, where it looked like I was accusing him of paedophilia (when I was actually waiting for him to say 'I don't know, I made it up), so I share your concern. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no reason why your "Soccer mum" scenario has to be any more problematic than the recomended course of action for WP:No legal threats: block her with a message (or template) that very politely and nicely describes why she has been banned, explains that she must not do it again, and outlines the correct way to report anyone she suspects.

Secondly, it is a very real libel and privacy threat, and it is not for individual editors to decide whether or not a comment is libelous or not, that is for the foundation (though Jimbo) to decide. If I were to (hypothetically) incorrectly accuse someone of being a paedophile, the person I have defamed is not going to sue me, because all they'll be able to get is the fifty cents in my pocket. They're going to sue the foundation for publishing it because they're worth a whole lot more. That risk is too great, especially when there is no negative in asking accusations of paedophilia to be dealt with in the same way as legal threats: discretely with the foundation rather than openly on (say) ANI. -- Lear's Fool 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording says that users may be blocked for questioning or accusing another editor in project space. There are clear libel and privacy issues with this type of accusation, which is why they should not be discussed on talk pages or at ANI.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If WMF could be sued for big money every time an editor libelled someone, they'd already be defunct! User allegations do not equal a WMF statement. Even admins are simply volunteers working on Wikipedia according to a set of user-created rules - their decisions also are not WMF policy. And despite the policy, I remember seeing a few users here and on Commons whose block summaries did contain the P-word, and there are indirect references such as I mentioned above where a thread that contains the account name of a user is brought up in the context of a discussion like this, yet there's been no legal action. I am not suggesting that some bad cases couldn't become the object of a legal threat and a subsequent office action to remove the risk, but I am saying that this need not be routine. How much is the reputation of a blocked Wikipedia account name really worth?

I should add that if these cases are discussed properly, with the skills possessed by any Wikipedia editor who can avoid original research and provide inline references for every paragraph, then libel should be the remotest possibility, since each statement should consist of an undeniable fact (a diff) and a clear personal opinion or interpretation temperately made (what you say the diff seems to indicate). The idea that an editor can make a diff where he says he's a pedophile, and then a second editor can make a diff where he says the editor said he's a pedophile, and the second editor should be sued for damaging the reputation of the first? Ridiculous! Wnt (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no danger of WMF being sued in most cases, as they are relying on a 'common carrier' defence for pretty much everything - including (as is clear from the debate on Commons) handling paedophiles. The thing to focus on is the disruption - was this intended as a personal attack, are there outing issues that need oversighting, can we just remove the comment from ANI and point the person to the right place (pace the above, WP:NLT says that the person is blocked until they withdraw the threat. This is not going to be appropriate in the case of someone who wants to notify the 'pedia that Foo is a danger - if I were convinced that someone was an actual danger to kids on the 'pedia, and you blocked me for saying it, I would probably keep going, sock, get all my friends to sock etc etc (the Mumsnet raiders). What the policy needs to say is that accusing someone may be considered a personal attack, and that may result in being blocked. In the case of the worried mom, the correct approach would be to revdelete the comment off ANI (to avoid the drama llama), and advise the editor to use the email, and explain why we don't want to have the discussion out in a public space.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this to a limited extent - WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA absolutely should apply fairly to such insults like the others - but the policy here should go no further than that. Whether or not people think that pedophiles are so much worse than other criminals that we need a special no-consensus policy to prohibit them, I certainly don't believe that the word is an insult so much worse than all others that we need a special policy to override the usual standards of WP:CIVIL. WP:OUTING can also apply - but only in the case of private personal information. Using an editor's diffs as proof that he is self-identifying as a pedophile or advocating adult-child relationships is not outing because his diffs are not personal information. We should not have to add a subtitle "Pedophile protection" under "Child protection" in WP:BLOCK! Wnt (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How about If you have a concern about another editor, please raise your concerns by email and they will be dealt with promptly by the Arbitration Committee. If you post your concerns on one of the community noticeboards, your post is likely to be removed - questions or accusations aimed directly at another editor have the potential to be disruptive, and may breach our policy relating to publishing personal information about other editors. This could in some circumstances result in a block for the editor who posted them. Comments suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile may be RevDeleted, particularly if they raise issues of privacy.

The wording suggested above is rather long winded and unclear compared to the current version. It could be added that an accusation would be seen as a violation of WP:NPA in some cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this pedophile issue being singled out? Just to salve the media? The implication here appears to be that it's OK to ask someone if they're an axe-murderer, a wife-beater, or a child-murderer, but not a pedophile, which is quite simply bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The issue is that if you accuse someone of being a paedophile, they frequently get REALLY annoyed about it, and disruption follows. Hence the desire not to have people running around plastering "Foo is a child molester" all over the place. The added downside is that if there seems some evidence that Foo really is a paedophile, a huge argument then breaks out over whether or not he should be blocked, with people advancing all kinds of arguments, some of which are not particularly reassuring to the person who reported the issue. I don't think it warrants an instablock, I think the normal WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:DISRUPT etc are quite adequate to handle instances where the accusations are not good faith, or are persistent to the point of disruption, or include information that needs oversighting (not a fan of revdelete - think it gets used too often)Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying as racists

Jimbo Wales made a comment above that I find quite disturbing: "To be clear, I think people making racist remarks or self-identifying as racists should be instantly banned as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)" I hope that that is simply a personal opinion, and not another CONEXCEPT in progress, but it demonstrates once again that this policy is a Hellmouth: consistency with it will continually spawn more bad ideas.

Now as with pedophilia, no one would deny that racism can quickly rise to the level of harassment that demands harsh action. And I certainly will not deny that racism is bad - the crimes that in modern society will brand a pedophile for life wouldn't fill a dull afternoon for the racists the world fought in the second World War. Merely considering the Rape of Nanking or the treatment of American POWs it is hard not to conclude that the most wretched feces-throwing child-rapist-murderer in the SHU of America's worst prison has more innate honor than the Japanese imperial line from Hirohito all the way back to the first pirate captain to hole up on the island. (Lest we have any confusion, this is a comment about the government, not the race) And yet there's a userbox:

User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/IRAA

and even one user who flies it (that's Fumimaro Konoe pictured), but I do not propose that this should be banned. This is first and foremost for the same reason that I don't think pedophile self-identification should be banned — should this one editor end up involved in some conflict or dubious practice, it will be easier for others to figure out what is going on. Likewise it is possible that the self-identifier doesn't really subscribe to everything the name seems to imply, just as with the recently much-discussed case of T——— it seems possible to me from his Wikisposure dossier that he is merely a teenage "pedophile" or else pursuing some other prank that we don't understand.

Yet however long and diffuse a shadow that pedophilia may cast over our society, racism casts one even longer and more difficult to define. You'd have to go through the list of self-identifications readily visible in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics and decide, for example, whether "Rexism" is a racist self-identification or not, when who among us knows enough to tell whether its anti-Semitism is intrinsic to the self-identification or only a political alliance? Many have described as "racists" those who call emphatically for the expulsion of illegal immigrants from the United States. Ron Paul has been called a racist for opposing affirmative action. And before long you'd have to decide whether rejecting a creed is likewise intolerable, or simply an expression of one's own creed (See User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Coming of Eurabia). It would just go on and on. How many of us are really, heart of hearts, completely cleansed of the disease of racism that has underlain so many of our societies and tinged so many of the preconceptions to which we have been trained since childhood? Wnt (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What Jimbo said can be traced back to the principle that nobody is guaranteed free speech on Wikipedia if it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Any form of conduct that leads to WP:DISRUPT can result in a block, but we have seen how long the arguments could become over questions like "What is a pedophile/racist etc?" Blocking policy should be led by Forrest Gump's dictum of "Stupid is as stupid does".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are concerned about the problems associated with trying to create and implement a specific bright line. Exactly. The solution is NOT to try to perfect a bright line on these emotionally charged issues. The point is to NOT draw a bright line in the first place. Thus the need for Jimbo, Sue, the board - whoever is willing and able to be the face of Wikimedia to the media - to announce broad sweeping generalizations that are NOT clearly codified, specified, and detailed on a wiki page; but are implemented by clueful people with a minimum of drama. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason these people don't like users identifying as X here is the press, which would be hammering the site as being an open garden for X people disliked by the dumb public opinion. Nothing else as long as the cash can flow. Big Skeleton (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a reason, but it's not the only reason. Minor4th • talk 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm reading a foreign language here. What is a "bright line"? Why isn't a "sweeping generalization" a bright line? How can a sweeping generalization not be codified? How is a clueful person defined, except as a person who happens to have the power to make the ruling and not tell anyone else his reasons? And do any of X's refer to racism, and is that currently subject to any bright lines, sweeping generalizations, codifications, or clueful people? Wnt (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Safety measures

At various points people have suggested creating a list of safety measures for children. I took a very basic stab at this at Wikipedia:Child protection/safety measures, in the hope someone will take interest and follow up on it. But it amazes me how the conversation about this has dried up. Wnt (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of overlap here with Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:Advice for parents, both of which are linked at the bottom of Wikipedia:Child protection. It is not entirely a bad thing that the conversation has dried up, because we had reached the stage where the same points were being raised in new sections.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors is pretty good but it is just an essay. I feel that some of its key points really out to be included in some guideline or policy level pages. E.g. it seems to me that one such key recommendation is to strongly discourage the underage editors from posting their age at their userpages (still a fairly common practice). IMO, there really needs to be some policy page containing such a recommendation. Perhaps WP:CHILDPROTECT is as good a place for this as any... Nsk92 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Content and enforcement?

Groan. We spent a lot of time about 9 months ago trying to get everyone to agree to an informal understanding of what the policy subcats mean and what they're for. The change to the subcats this month seems wrong to me. This page seems like it belongs in Category:Wikipedia procedural policies; please skim that cat and Category:Wikipedia content policies and Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies and see if the similarities to the first cat and the differences from the other two cats don't jump out at you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Made the edit (in time for the monthly WP:Update); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(Somewhat) related discussion: proposed ArbCom policy change

I've mentioned the recent debate here at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Draft, a proposal that would expand Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to include "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy, legal, or similar concerns" and remove the present statement that "The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus", among other changes. To me this seems a continuation of the discussion we've had here, though to others it may not. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This policy and the Code of Conduct Policy

Is there a way to reconcile the two? From what I can see, while this policy is well-intentioned (and I certainly agree that any sexual harassment, either adult-adult or adult-child, should be grounds for a ban), I think the part about blanket-banning admitted paedophiles violates the CoC policy by discriminating on sexual orientation (arguable) and medical status (definitely). I raised this point some time ago, but I didn't explicitly mention the CoC and the discussion died out. While I understand that anyone who admits to being a paedophile is probably up to no good, I still think it to be wrong to ban someone simply because they have a (publicly unpopular) mental disorder or committed a (publicly unpopular) crime. Given that we explicitly don't ban users for having far-right views (see: NatDemUK et al), and that I suspect we'd allow people who have served time for felonies in the same class to edit and be open about their criminal history, this policy seems to be not grounded in good practice for an encyclopedia, but simply to pander to the populist press. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Variations of this argument can be found in the talk page archive. In practice, it would almost always be unhelpful for a user to say "I am a pedophile" or to admit to a criminal record in this area. The users who received an indefinite block had been persistently disruptive on this issue, rather than attempting an honest debate. The other recurring point is that admitting to being a pedophile would raise serious doubts about the user's access to "email this user", since it is almost impossible to guarantee that it would not be misused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I could understand that, but so would admitting to any other sex offence. The problem with the policy is that it singles out one crime and one mental disorder. I would support a policy where people with criminal records or serious psychological disorders are discouraged from disclosing this fact, but at the same time: self-identified paedophiles, I think, should not be blocked if the admission did not disrupt the encyclopedia (and I exclude an ANI thread about the admission from this, as people who frequent there are drama addicts). I know this won't make me any friends, but, just like the U.S. Constitution, we can't throw away our core policies just because we'd be breaking them to discriminate against an unpopular group... Sceptre ^(talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Self-identification is disruption. Giving self-identified pedophiles the ability to e-mail children makes wikipedia complicit in any potential crime.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is only disruption because people want to make drama out of any self-identification. And Wikipedia probably wouldn't be liable for any subsequent crime, as they'd just cite Section 230 (which other wikis have cited to avoid liability for a paedophile sexually harassing minors. And your argument makes a better case for better controls on e-mail than banning paedophiles. We shouldn't be even taking email address from children anyway; I'm pretty sure there's legal issues with COPPA in doing so. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a legal issue, this is a moral issue. They would be morally complicit if they knowingly allowed a self-identified pedophile to e-mail a child.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should we be dictating morality? Morality has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the world you live in morality free? The wiki is a reflection of the world around you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is morality an adequate reason to imprison or sanction something in the real world? No. The only rules Wikipedia should have should be towards the improvement of the encyclopedia. I don't see how blanket bans of otherwise innocent self-identitfied pedophiles improve the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only state that I agree with you. I have previously voiced strong skepticism about the content of this page and the surreptitious manner in which it has been developed, not to mention Jimbo's "this is policy because it is, because I say so" edict. Disruptive and intimidating or predatory pedophiles can be dealt with on the grounds that they are a) disruptive to the work of the project, b) intimidating other users, or c) commit sexually predatory behavior. Everything beyond this amounts to moral panic reaction. __meco (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre and Meco. This policy goes against our open atmosphere; we are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Block editors after they can no longer contribute well, not due to any predispositions. Them From Space 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

While I've supported this position at length in preceding discussion, and I'm glad to see discussion resumed here, it is largely a theoretical issue. A self-professed pedophile is probably a troll or a nut - while it's possible that some Jackie Robinson among pedophiles could come here and make highly productive edits from a unique point of view, there's no evidence one will arise even with the best policy. But the other problems with the policy - punishing people who make public complaints, then handling the cases in some secret ArbCom proceeding, with any information about the case censored out of the page history - that has every possibility to really come back and bite us in the ass. Just imagine what a news story about that is going to sound like - even if (hopefully) no child is harmed by someone connected with such a case, an angry parent threatened or blocked could raise a huge fuss all by herself. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While there is always the potential, as you stated (not that I think there's any great level of it), there is a HECK of a lot more potential for public accusations of that nature to end up badly. SirFozzie (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the whole debate about executing innocent people refitted for this issue, in that it may be better to let ninety-nine pedophiles edit freely when accused than to ban one non-pedophile. Re, Wnt: You're right, for the most part, that this is a theoretical issue at the moment. Personally, I think we need to balance child protection with the maxim that anyone who wants to edit constructively can. That's why I support technical measures that prevent children from danger in the first place (for example, some sort of age verification before Emailuser is activated, oversighting/abusefiltering edits revealing personal information about editors under thirteen), but not banning a theoretical non-disruptive pedophile because we were lazy in not preventing the danger in the first place. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the point. We shouldn't be trying to filter out who is able to work on the project or we're debasing our own maxim of being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As was pointed out at another point in time, with this policy, we're pretty much putting a star next to "anyone" and putting a footnote that has a list of specific types of people that aren't allowed to participate at all. What we should be focusing on is making more protections for those that we are wanting to make sure nothing happens to on Wikipedia, not banning users for things they could possibly or theoretically do. Unless we want to start enacting thoughtcrime on WP, I think we should be working on protections and not secrecy and banning. Silver seren^C 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid becoming involved here, mainly because we are reheating past arguments. The current wording of Wikipedia:Child protection is fair. Users should not make accusations of pedophilia in project space (this has led to extraordinary mudslinging in the past) and users should not say "I am a pedophile" or similar in project space (this was one of the conclusions of the Pedophilia userbox wheel war) The exact wording of the policy can always be debated, but the underlying positions are clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite the extraordinary mudslinging? It's hard for me to imagine that such an incident couldn't have been handled with the ordinary civility policy. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One incident springs to mind, but in fairness to Wikipedia and the people involved, my memory has failed on exactly where it was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I balance an unspecified incident from the past against one I think could happen in the future, it doesn't seem like a strong argument to depart from ordinary policy. There are enough options open to administrators that I think we could avoiding having a paragraph in WP:BLOCK under the paragraph on "Child protection" that I think could fairly be headlined "Pedophile protection". (And I've been tempted to make that edit for months now...) Wnt (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The best way to protect kids is to educate parents to regulate the kids. Site filtering, site management, network management. Whoever pays for the kids' connection has responsibility of the traffic going through it. Sex predators (which is different from pedophiles as it encompasses people who predate on underage people by law, rather than just thinking about pre pubescent kids) hang around chat networks and forums and use yahoo messenger (if Dateline NBC speaks the truth about these things....), rather than using wikipedia to contact targets. So chill for a bit. Worromp Warg (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding users blocked for violating this policy

I have recently become aware of two indef-blocked users returning with new accounts. Both were blocked prior to this policy being written down -- one in late 2009, the other in early 2010 -- but I do not think there would be any doubt that this policy would apply. One of the new accounts was active for only a few months, the other has been active for over six months. Obviously, I cannot name the new or old accounts involved.

Presumably, we do not wish to have advocates of paedophilia returning to Wikipedia to continue their activities. Having identified such editors, we have a responsibility to be proactive in preventing them from returning. I suggest that the following measures are adopted immediately for all instances where editors have been blocked from violating this policy (including those which pre-date the written version):

when any editor is blocked for violation of this policy, a checkuser is run on all of their known accounts
the results of that checkuser are kept for future reference
on a periodic basis (say, monthly), the checkuser mechanism is used to detect new accounts that have been created by the blocked editors, with reference to the stored checkuser information
new accounts (if any) are blocked and the checkuser information which was used to identify them is stored for future reference

My understanding of the checkuser mechanism is limited, but I believe this proposal is feasible. Given that we have the tools to do this, I feel that it is irresponsible not to do so, especially in light of the fact that blocked users have been able to return and edit undetected for months at a time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't technical, it's legal. We are not allowed to retain checkuser data in this way by the privacy policy.

Besides, if the editors are back to advocacy, their lifetime on Wikipedia will be short indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on the legal bit? The privacy policy here is so vague that this could be done without changing it (although I would expect it to be noted that data may be retained in some circumstances). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you change what the policy says, it won't say the same thing. :-) I doubt you will find much support for this, however, as many already feel that it's overly permissive in some respects.

As for the legal aspect, it's a simple one: nobody can subpoena data you do not have. This is why having a data retention policy (or non-retention, as the case may be) is indispensable, and one that make it unattractive to attempt to bully editors or the Foundation with legal maneuvering. — Coren ^(talk) 19:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So when you say "we are not allowed" (your emphasis), you don't mean legally. You can't mean that you are not allowed by the terms of the privacy policy, since it doesn't state any terms (for length of retention) and already has disclaimers which would allow this retention. And I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but you seem to be more concerned about protecting the Foundation from possible requests for data than you do about preventing people who have already been identified as advocates of paedophilia from continuing their activities on Wikipedia. Are you speaking for ARBCOM here, or just yourself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't and can't keep data as if we do it can be legally requested, seems quite clear. If you have information about returning banned users you could email that information to Arbcom as is detailed in the policy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not keeping data because it may be requested in the course of a lawsuit is an explanation of why we don't not of why we can't. I am not suggesting that all data is retained indefinitely, just the data that relates to this small subset of users. At present, the privacy policy does not even provide any indication of how long data is retained, so this objection to my proposal seems somewhat abstract. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the data is dumped asap. Imo that is very good, I don't see the big issue. We are vigilant as we can be and child protection is clearly a foundation policy. Imagine the request .. freedom of information request for the details of such and such a user. I am not a lawyer but not keeping data sounds like a real good position. I also agree with Coren that even if a banned user was able to return we are vigilant of these issues and a small comment or violation of this policy would see them vanish faster than a sack of peanuts in a monkey cage. As a Wikipedia user if you have information about such returning users it is imo the correct thing for you to do is to forward that information quietly to Arbcom via email. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As you say, you are not a lawyer, but a "freedom of information request" applies to government bodies, so is not applicable here. When you say that it "seems like the data is dumped asap", you are making assumptions and speculations based on some very vague wording. Neither one of us knows how long data is retained, or if some data is already retained indefinitely. I am unable to discuss specifics here, but in both the cases I am currently aware of, the editors returned to subjects that they had previously been associated with and edited in very similar patterns. For months. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you email the committee with the details of those edits? If they are advocating, they will be blocked — regardless of whether they had accounts in the past or not. I still do not understand why you think it is useful or necessary to have IP information to do this. — Coren ^(talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but you seem to be suggesting that users who have been previously identified as advocates of paedophilia are free to edit here unless or until they are caught advocating paedophilia again. That seems at odds with this policy and any kind of "common-sense" child protection efforts. Have I misunderstood you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned and indefinitely blocked users are not allowed to edit although with a dynamic IP we are unable to stop them creating a new account in a library or some such if they are insistent as you know we have some infamous repeat sock vandals and so on. The point is that if they repeat edit patterns or violate this or some other policy they will soon be gone again, you know all this? Its is not at all that banned and blocked users are free to edit, this is an open wiki last time I looked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, perhaps you should let Coren answer for themselves? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you actually do not appear to have a valid question that hasn't been answered, your claims that you know of pedophiles that have returned but your refusal to name them in a private email as is almost required of you as a good faith contributor is a bit disruptive imo, you should either send the details to Arbcom or move along. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to discuss the details here, but please make no assumptions about ARBCOM's awareness of the cases to which I have referred. I don't know why you expected that I would disclose the details of those accounts to you simply because you sent me an email. So far as I know, you are not part of ARBCOM and do not represent Wikipedia or the WMF in any way, shape, or form. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am a contributor to the project just as you are. You said you have editing patterns keep it to yourself then. Perhaps you want something here that you are not expressing correctly, best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) You're misunderstanding a number of things. You're misunderstanding the point of the policy — prevent advocacy and not brand people. You're misunderstanding how checkuser information and IP addresses work (checkuser info is mostly worthless without behavioral data). You're misunderstanding the difference between the standard of evidence we require to ban a user by this policy ("any advocacy whatsoever") and that which we would require for a formal ban. — Coren ^(talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the illusion that the intent of this policy was to protect children. Perhaps it was the name that mislead me. To help me understand this better, perhaps you could answer my question? Are users who have been previously identified as advocates of paedophilia are free to edit here unless or until they are caught advocating paedophilia again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to return with a different account, regardless of why they were banned. We don't actively hunt for reincarnations of banned users, tho. Not officially, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is limited to those users who have already been identified as advocates of paedophilia, so a very very small and particular subset of banned users. I am suggesting that for this subset, we do take a proactive approach and use the available tools to do so. I understand that checkuser is not magic and identification of sockpuppets often comes down to behavioural evidence, but I do not see the wisdom of throwing away the server log data available to us. What isn't clear to me from Coren's earlier answer is if presented with checkuser evidence that suggests that an account is a reincarnation of a user in that small subset, would ARBCOM block the account? Assume they are editing subjects related to paedophilia, even if they aren't overtly advocating it. Next hypothetical - assume that an editor who edits subjects in no way related to paedophilia admits privately that they have previously been banned for violation of this policy - if they were informed, would ARBCOM block in that case? Coren's comment about "not branding people" leads me to wonder if we are rehashing debates that came up around blocking "self-identified" paedophiles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We're trying very hard to not rehash that mess, tyvm. At any rate, yes, if we find an editor whom we know (through checkuser or otherwise) has been banned by this policy, the block will be immediately forthcoming. There is, however, a world of difference between that and storing private information in order to actively hunt for possible reincarnation. Not even counting the obvious danger of erroneous blocks, there is a big ethical gulf between getting rid of a problem user and putting a surveillance system in place in order to find people to get rid of! — Coren ^(talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. While I am proposing that we take a proactive approach here, I don't think of it as hunting for people to block so much as checking that people that we have blocked for very serious reasons have not returned. Obviously, there would have to be care taken not to block the wrong people, which is why I am advocating using as much information as possible and using technical evidence to support behavioural evidence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You're just confusing the order of causality. We cannot retain the data because the policy does not allow us to. The policy is written that way because of the legal issue. And yes, you are correct that I am "more concerned about protecting the Foundation" than I am with crafting exceptions to our privacy policies in order to hypothetically pursue people suspected of being returning banned users. It's important that our project and its users be protected, but not at the cost of a witch hunt or a kneejerk to unfounded moral panic. — Coren ^(talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, and I hadn't noticed the ArbCom/Me question above: I'm speaking on my own and not officially, but informed by my seat on the committee — I can pretty much guarantee you'll not find dissent from any Arb). — Coren ^(talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that the privacy policy, such as it is, has been written to thwart third-parties in any attempts to subpoena data from the WMF, rather than to actually protect the privacy of Wikipedia users. This explains why the policy lacks such obvious information as which data is collected and how often it is deleted (although it helpfully says "the server confidentially stores related IP information for a limited period of time" and that the data "is automatically deleted after a set period"). This "policy" is simply useless bafflegab (and apparently so by design). I have heard that IP data collected when accounts are created is kept indefinitely. Do you know if this is the case? If you don't know, can you make inquiries on my behalf? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. As far as I know, loggable actions (edits, admin actions, account creations) are currently kept some 90 days, though that is not set in stone (it's a balancing act between keeping checkuser useful and privacy). Access logs (reads) are not kept more than a few hours; they are processed for the stats (without keeping the actual identifying stuff — i.e. it sums reads, counts unique visitors, etc) then deleted.

But you're missing the point — preventing the data from being subpoenaed is for the protection of users' privacy: there is no cost or harm to the foundation if someone gets logs (beyond the annoyance of complying), but the point is to keep that data out of vexatious litigants' hands. And trust me, this isn't an hypothetical: ask Mike how many times each year he gets to say "Sorry, that data is not kept as a matter of routine procedure" to entities who want to SLAPP editors silly. — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for 3 days

This page is semiprotected for 3 days due to a spree of libel. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Child Protection vs. NPOV

This policy, while important, is in clear violation of one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, the Neutral Point of View policy. I believe that there are few other topics, if any, that are compromised by such a one-sided policy. Yes, protection of Children is important, there is no question about this but I honestly do not see how promoting a neutral, fair article about pedophilia and related topics forwards this.

We have a number of articles on various topics, some that many people believe that children should not see - such as information on sex positions, pipe bombs and Suicide methods. However, we have these articles on these subjects on Wikipedia because these are important issues that people need to know about. And when we are talking about any important issue, we need to be open-minded and consider a neutral point of view. I feel that there needs to be higher importance on accuracy and fairness. I feel that any academic community would be ashamed of such a policy. JessicaSideways (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jessica, you misunderstand. It is perfectly possible to have neutral articles about pedophilia on wikipedia. this policy is designed to keep discussions of pedophilia from becoming implicit advocacy or social networking for pedophiles, which has been an occasional worry in the past. Being neutral does not mean being blind or ignorant; respected academics who write about pedophiles stop well short of marketing their books to them. --Ludwigs2 06:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN goes on the warpath against Amazon.com

The much-threatened media attack on this topic has now occurred - not against Wikipedia, but against Amazon.com. CNN's "Keeping them honest" (Anderson Cooper 360) seems to be leading the charge, with some assistance from Adam Walsh.[3] Other stories are making the rounds like [4]. After seeing this morning's segment on CNN, from the perspective of defending freedom of speech I would make some observations:

Amazon's initial retreat, banning one book, did not satisfy their detractors. Instead Cooper was back demanding three more books be banned, and even though he got another banned almost instantly, he was still proposing a boycott.

The fact that Amazon already has an expansive censorship policy against many things did not help them, but was only cited as a reason for more outrage that they had failed to spot this and stop it.

Cooper gives no credit whatsoever to the author for proposing moral guidelines for pedophiles not to harm children (in his opinion). I'm not suggesting that we should tolerate sexual abuse of children, but I'm not convinced that it is a good thing for society to actively work to frustrate any attempt they make to draw a line against murder, mutilation, and terrorization of child victims.

Cooper characterized any attempt to tell pedophiles what was legal and what isn't as an effort to "evade" the law. I don't think it's reasonable to proclaim that Amazon is helping pedophiles to evade law enforcement by giving them information about how to follow the law.

Cooper specifically called into question Amazon's policy of allowing self-published books to be sold without someone reading them over first. He is really calling for a general policy of corporate prior restraint over all publications.

Now the point I want to make here is that I don't believe that this much-feared media reaction is really about helping and protecting children. Its core function is to elevate media companies — maybe Amazon, but more likely CNN — to the role of official censors with quasi-legal power (by market monopolization and collusion) over the tolerable range of public expression. Of course, that is not a new story,[5] and is directly opposed by the predicted power of the e-book to break the near-monopolies once imposed by publishers and distributors.[6] This is not really just about a couple of crazy pedophiles but about any would-be author who wants to communicate his beliefs to an audience over a potentially open market; they want a gatekeeper in every case, always answerable to them. They don't care if this interferes with efforts by pedophiles to limit the harm they do, or whether it stops outside forces from being able to observe how the pedophiles think and try to come up with ways to influence that. And any sign of weakness is simply taken as a sign that it is time to press the attack for further advantage.

I understand that certain people at WMF don't want to be vulnerable to such attack; but they give the impression that they believe that the attackers will be motivated by honest belief and an intent to do good rather than an amoral pursuit of power. That is a mistake. Wnt (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been causing a brouhaha in the media [7], but it does not impact directly on Wikipedia, which has its own policies. Anyone who does not use project space in a sensible way is liable to be blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the reaction that some of you warned us about, and yes, you probably did help avoid it with this policy — for now. But now that it's happening, we should think about the ramifications. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Louie C.K. made a good point on his show... If we, as a society, didn't have such a gut reaction to pedophila, there'd probably be less dead children. It's the world we live in, however. I think that this policy, as an official policy, is the best thing we can do to avoid being the brunt of an irrational witch hunt. Do you think there is something more we should be doing, either to actually protect children, or to protect Wikipedia? Gigs (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sad thing is that this policy doesn't actually have anything to do with protecting children, but keeping Wikipedia from being held responsible (or an attempt to hold Wikipedia responsible) if something did happen. This page was never about protection or safety of children, but about covering ourselves from liability charges. Or at least against social stigma. Of course, this has been discussed multiple times before anyways. Silver seren^C 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the Wikipedia community is also currently having a bout centering on this Amazon controversy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure. __meco (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The vagueness...

I recently saw this policy and was stunned by its vagueness.

"...who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships..."

First of all, by "inappropriate", I presume "sexual" is meant. Even so, this is increbily vague. It offers no definition of "adult" or "child". While adult can be interpreted as being eighteen years old or over, child is a vague term- any age from ten to eighteen can be itnerpreted as being the end of child status. If adult-minor sexual relatinoships is what is intended, than why not simply say that?

And "advocate" is also a vague term- any of the following statements could be interpreted as advocating these relationships-

"I think that old men and babies should have sex!" Clearly advocating.

"I think that teh age of consent should be lowered." Not as advocating as it is supporting the legalization of. Someone can say that smoking should be legal while still saying that it is bad.

"I think that the age of consent should be the age for all sexual consent." Depends on the definition of "child", as well as the above.

"I like Ancient Athens." Here it gets totally ridculous. The Athenians were well-known for having waht could be called "inappropriate adult–child relationships", both in pederasty and in that the average age of marriage for women was sixteen while for men it was thirty.

Therefore, beyond the bizzareness of the policy itself, it does not thoroughly explain what it means. The Dark Peria (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm not aware of any borderline blocks or bans resulting from this policy. Since this was "policy by fiat" rather than consensus, I'd imagine the community would want a clear-cut violation before acting to enforce it. We used to have pro-pedophila people advertising their affiliation on their user page prior to this, as an example. Regardless of the arguments pro or con regarding allowing this sort of speech, it was a risk that the foundation could no longer bear. Gigs (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is attempting to use semantics to pull the policy apart. A very small number of users have been indefinitely blocked for gross misconduct in this area, but many of the issues raised above (slippery slope etc) have already been addressed the talk page archive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I get that feeling as well. If you look at the version that was "anointed" by Jimbo though, it did have less vague phrasing. So he might have a somewhat valid point there. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any borderline blocks. Everyone in the record was advocating for sex with the pre-adolescent (under 12), not campaigning to get the age of consent changed from 21 to 16. The issue isn't the definition of child, it's the definition of paedophile - someone with a sexual attraction to a child too young to have developed their own sexuality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. If I understand our article correctly, pedophilia is technically a psychiatric disorder (and is specific to the interest in prepubescent children). The term is incorrectly applied popularly to refer to anyone with any sexual interest in children whatsoever. The popular use of the term can refer to interest in anyone under the age of 18. What, exactly is this policy referring to? Surely it's not limited to technically diagnosed pedophiles? Advocating lowering the age of consent is can be seen as advocating relationships that are currently illegal. I think that could be called inappropriate. What a stupendously flawed policy, in terms of wording. And no, gigs, this isn't an attempt to pull the policy apart, it's an attempt to draw meaning and clarity from the wording. Swarm ^X 00:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we never did come to a conclusion in regards to hebephilia and ephebophilia. Both were something I raised in the talk page archives time and again, but I was never really given a satisfactory response. Not to mention how the age of consent varies across the world. Of course, it's likely that this "policy" is kept so vague because then the Foundation can block users in cases that, if this was specific, wouldn't apply, but they can then point to this page, saying that that user falls under this very broad policy. Silver seren^C 00:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're very right, it's pretty clearly a failsafe to protect the Foundation; an "apply as needed" policy, as opposed to something that actually serves to protect children. Unfortunately, the situation is that the community isn't allowed to change this policy- even if it's to simply clarify its intent. This is despite numerous valid concerns and the inability of others to answer them. Swarm ^X 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It kinda gives fuel to the sarcasm of saying that we, the community, are the ones that run Wikipedia. We all know that that isn't true. When it comes down to it, the Foundation is a corporation and it runs everything. And its rules are the law. Silver seren^C 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True, we tend to get lulled into the sense that consensus and the community rule all. At the end of the day the foundation lays down the law, Jimbo can essentially rule by decree and the community can't do anything about it. May not necessarily be a bad thing, but it's certainly not helpful when they create "consensus-proof" policies. Swarm ^X 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct. Every time this issue has been debated, consensus has clearly backed the unwritten policy. While it is true that there are a handful of editors who disagree with the current situation, those who do agree generally do not bother commenting on pages like this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And where is this prior debate on this topic? As far as I remember, I was asking you guys for proof of prior consensus when this policy page was made and I was never given anything. Arbcom and Foundation members just swooped in and said that the discussion was over. Silver seren^C 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Enormous work went into creating a form of wording that would stick. It is vague to some extent, because the laws in different countries vary. Very few users have ever been blocked in this area, and they were not borderline cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is this work? I've been following and sometimes contributing to the various discussions about policies like this for several years, and I've seen only two outcomes for them - rejection and no consensus. Both because while many people want to "protect" "children" from "harm" and/or "harmful people" nobody has been able to agree on any actual definitions of "children", what "harm" is, who "harmful people" might or might not be. As it stands we have a policy that allows users to be blocked so a group of people who aren't defined can be undefined from another group of people who aren't defined and a range of situations that are undefined that might or might not do something undefined to them. Your opinion seems to be "it's ok to have a vague policy because we've blocked people we don't like previously.". I'm sorry but this is no way to go about achieving the aims of the policy (protecting children from harm without penalising those who do no harm to them). Also from memory, not all of the cases have been as straightforward as you portray here - there were at least two users who were blocked solely because they self-identified as being paedophiles (remember "paedophile" does not equal "child abuser" - "paedophilia" is a mental attraction not an action. Just as not all people who are sexually attracted to blondes have sex with blondes, not all people sexually attracted to children have sex with children) who wanted to help keep the paedophile article (and related articles) neutral and factual (which at the time was also being edited by users who wanted the article to exclusively reflect the tabloid viewpoint that anyone who had any interest in the sexuality of anyone under the age of consent was a child abusing paedophile). There were users who were rightly blocked for disruptive behaviour in this area, but this was not everybody. Stating "There have been no edge cases yet" does not mean that there will never be any. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret my position as "it's ok to have a vague policy because we've blocked people we don't like previously." I've run short of things to say on this because it is all in previously archived discussions. The userbox wheel war ruling concluded that saying "I am a pedophile/support the legalization of pedophilia" is not an acceptable use of project space, and that still stands. In order to write factual and neutral articles about pedophilia, it is not necessary to make personal declarations or admissions that might lead to a block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed that ruling about project space still stands, and personal declarations about anything are not required to write factual or neutral articles. Wheel wars in and of themselves harm the encyclopaedia, blocking those who (state they) hold minority positions about controversial topics does not benefit the encyclopaedia in and of itself. Blocking people who cause disruption benefits the encyclopaedia, but merely holding such opinions is not disruptive in and of itself. I apologise if my previous statement misinterprets your position, but please could you enlighten me as to what your position actually is then as I've been unable to draw any other understanding from your statements. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin and most of my views on this are in the talk page archive. Not much of my time is spent worrying about this policy, because the freedom of speech issue would always take second place to whether edits to a talk page or article were likely to improve the encyclopedia. I am fully aware that a definition of the word "pedophile" that would satisfy everyone is impossible. Any blocks for this issue would result from serious and unacceptable breaches of overall Wikipedia policy. Can you cite examples of blocks over child protection that you believe were unfair?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is complaining about unfair blocks as a result of this policy. I reiterate Thryduulf's sentiments of "Where is this work?" and "...please could you enlighten me as to what your position actually is then as I've been unable to draw any other understanding from your statements." Swarm ^X 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all of the discussions are in this talk page archive, some may be on other pages which I cannot find at the moment (could someone help here?) As for my views, it does not really matter what I think as long as the policy is applied sensibly by those who are in power. The Slippery slope is the most common objection, but I am unconvinced and the same arguments were raised when changes to the sexual content policy were proposed on Commons. Provided that material has some encyclopedic merit, it can always be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here, I'll try to help. Thryduulf et al, without disputing any of the points being made here, this isn't a community-derived policy and your comments would be better directed to Sue Gardner and/or the WMF. Ianmacm's views are probably better discussed on his talkpage because they make no difference here. Ianmacm, if you don't like the positions you find yourself in here, perhaps you should just stop wading into these discussions. Just a thought. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of contention is the fact that this isn't a community-derived policy when every policy is supposed to be community-derived, at least according to the Foundation. See this video, where Jimbo says, "All the site content is decided by Wikipedia's volunteer contributors. The Foundation has no editorial role whatsoever. The Foundation's job is to keep the servers running and the lights on." Except it seems to me that, in this case, the Foundation is very clearly interfering in Wikipedia policy and, thus, making itself have an editorial role. Not to mention that the Foundation has an editorial role regardless, or we wouldn't have WP:OFFICE, so the whole idea of the Foundation being separate and not controlling Wikipedia and its users is a total sham. Silver seren^C 23:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Silver has it correct, we know that if we want to try to get the wording changed, we can contact the foundation. The major issue is the overall sentiment that this is a concrete policy laid down by the Foundation that the community has no say in, that only serves the Foundations needs (or appears to). Swarm ^X 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, I'm just once again pointing it out that saying it here is not going to change anything and will just lure well-meaning editors like Ianmacm into your echo chamber where they end up trying to defend something that they really don't have any say in. I encourage you to take this to the WMF directly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is something I am considering doing, but it's easier said than done. The only short term, acceptable solution I see is to have the Foundation specify the areas in question, which is what I would contact them requesting they do. Still need to think about it. Swarm ^X 04:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about "who identify themselves as paedophiles"

What would happen if someone acknowledges they are paedophiles but are undergoing psychological treatment? 86.148.33.35 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat hypothetical. The policy is designed to discourage users from openly justifying relationships with children that would be illegal in most jurisdictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So would they be able to continue editing wikipedia? 86.148.33.35 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy says: "Editors ... who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The death of wikipedia

This is the death of wikipedia. Banning people for sexual orientation rather than their actions. Let's say person x is born attracted to children and later you develop a fancy for Beatles and Poker and start editing on wikipedia in such articles --> BANNED simply for having the wrong sexual orientation.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - What a joke. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation refers to the gender preferences of an individual, not a desire to have sex with children. Just so you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not typically, but some do use it the way you do. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but Wikipedia is bound by Florida law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See also [8].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which makes even less sense. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi folks, there is an RfC here about role accounts and elementary schools that might be relevant to folks who follow this page. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)