Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Thoughts

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I've been thinking about the policy and trying to reconcile it with rules like the foundation's non-discrimination policy. Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track?

The NDP prohibits discrimination on grounds of mental disability (which paedophilia is), evident by the fact that that several administrators have, and admit to, mental disorders (generally mood and/or anxiety disorders, which are tolerated by society).
- However, child sexual abuse is a felony.
- In addition, social opinion makes it unwise, even suicidal, to admit to being a paedophile. Hence, we can say that anyone who would admit to being a paedophile is almost certainly going to advocate child sexual abuse.
Hence, we would block any user who advocates committing a felony, not just advocates of child sexual abuse.

I also am curious to what happens with users with criminal records for child sexual abuse that do not edit any child-related or sex-related articles and do not self-identify? If a contributor were to out this hypothetical user, who would get blocked? The paedophile, the person who outed him, or both? And what if it was a person with a criminal record of a different felony? Would the same rules apply for him? And what about people convicted of statutory rape? This is the key point: I accept blocking people who advocate breaking the law in general, but I don't accept singling out just one mental disorder and/or felony. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors who are or are alleged to be pedophilistic (whatever the word) should certainly not be banned simply because they have a disease or a criminal past. They should be treated like every other editor and if the editing otherwise violates policy then address that. Focus on the content not the contributor. Unless the sign-on to the website now gives a laundry list of which people can't edit it would seem to violate the spirit of the policy and likely be illegal. Prejudging people has proven to be unreliable and inaccurate. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As Forrest Gump says: "Stupid is as stupid does".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia gives Jimbo Wales (but not ArbCom) a certain amount of power under WP:CONEXCEPT to promulgate policy. But as far as I know, he has not promulgated any general ban on "advocating illegal activity", and I certainly hope that he will not stray that far into error. For those of us on the extreme free speech end, it is extraordinarily easy to draw the line: we don't. But Spectre, where would you draw the line?

User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/JuryNull	User:Mjpresson/Userboxes/mymeds	User:Jimmy da tuna/Userboxes/means
User:Vuerqex/userboxes/animal liberation front	User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/Torture3	User:Supersheep/Userboxes/Antifa
User:Vuerqex/userboxes/anti-fascist

I don't think the line should be drawn; it is Americans' right to support what they will. Happy Fourth of July! Wnt (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had to limit it (personally, I wouldn't prohibit anyone who wanted to contribute peacefully from doing so), I would personally limit it to direct advocacy of serious crimes against property and person. In effect, direct advocacy of rape, murder, theft, arson, assault, but not intoxicant use, loitering, or copyright infringement, or tax resistance. As to the userboxes, I would allow #1 and #2. I'd also allow #6 if it didn't advocate violence. And you are right that it is Americans' right to support what they will (as long it isn't anything to do with Muslims), but we aren't bound by the First Amendment. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell would probably have violated the Third law of thermodynamics before there was a consensus on the more general question of preventing Wikipedians from advocating all forms of "unlawful conduct". The legal status of Cannabis (drug) is a good example, while the existence of different laws in different countries would also make the debate almost worthless. Wikipedia:Child protection is framed in a way that no sensible Wikipedian could disagree with, and is designed to avoid legal mumbo-jumbo that could lead to wikilawyering. Let's hope we can get some peace with this policy in place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I was framing my answer to be similar to "what would a libertarian keep illegal?", as anything a libertarian would make/keep illegal for a person to do—which generally tend to be crimes against property and person—, anyone else who wasn't completely batshit would keep illegal. So really, I'd stop people from advocating murder, assault, rape, theft, and arson, as anyone with an ounce of sense agrees that these are Bad Things. But where the (il)legality of actions is disputed, i.e. intoxicant use, loitering, copyright infringement, and tax resistance, I'd err on the side of freedom and allow people to personally advocate for those if they didn't disrupt the encyclopedia too much. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While I have much sympathy for a libertarian point of view, I should point out that your list is prone to dispute. For example, a notably jury nullification case involving Laura Kriho yielded felony obstruction charges,[1] and felonies were one of the previously suggested dividing lines. Though the Obama administration has made it a "lowest possible priority" in states with medical marijuana laws, medical marijuana production likewise remains on a paper a very serious felony. Conversely, the "Animal Liberation Front" is a chaotic organization with aboveground components, and a supporter could say that it is the organization he supports, not a handful of supporters who stray into illegal behavior. And where torture is concerned, there are those who believe the Bush administration about its legality. Even the one who won't rest until every Nazi is dead isn't necessarily saying to murder them; perhaps they could simply be executed under international law. My point is not to suggest that the direct opposite dividing line is really right, but rather that no matter which way you would decide, on any of the examples above, there would be very good arguments to decide the other way. Without personal prejudice - in your case libertarian, in someone else's perhaps liberal or conservative - without personal prejudice, a person would be lost to decide which to accept and which to reject. Unless he refuses to enter the game, and accepts the right of users to support what causes they wish. Wnt (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Hence, we can say that anyone who would admit to being a paedophile is almost certainly going to advocate child sexual abuse." That's a leap of bad faith. We can't prejudge a moving target to say because A, B and C must also be true. Like the example of admins who have mood disorders but still manage to function here as admins we care if a person can handle their situation and abide by our community standards. Setting wikilawyer traps doesn't make sense and isn't needed. If they actually are breaking some policy then so be it but our policies can not be written that people with disease X are de facto banned as that is counter to non-discrimination statutes. Make it clear what the concerns are and note that even stating you are a paedophile likely will cause disruption and could be seen as bringing harm by the larger society. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what you can safely say is that anyone who adds "I'm a paedophile" to their userboxen is definitely going to cause disruption just by doing that. Having said that, saying "I hate Jews/Arabs/Serbs/Cats" is probably going to have the same effect.... The folks who say the latter do it mostly to make a political point that they feel is shocking/cool/something else lame/ An interesting question (don't answer) is why someone would come to Wikipedia and say 'I'm a paedophile'.

Exactly. Paedophiles are just one step below terrorists in a list of targets for the public's disdain. It's been that way for quite some time; I remember the paediatrician who was the subject of harassment, and the infamous Brass Eye special that satirised what was, in some sense, a moral panic precipitated by the concept of "thinking of the children". Of course, I'm not defending child sexual abuse, but at the same time, the media have made it very unwise for someone to say that they are a paedophile. If someone will willingly admit to being a paedophile on a website where they don't need to, they are either insanely stupid, or are among the people who would advocate the practice. However, mood disorders (and, I'm going to add, most forms of sexuality) are well accepted in the developed world, especially thanks to public figures such as Stephen Fry, who have been pushing for acceptance of these completely harmless personality aspects.

To Wnt: I admit, to some extent, that I did back-pedal. I am trying to find a set of practices which are nearly universally (as in, 99.999999% of people) abhored to do so on an innocent person, which tend to property crime and crimes of aggravation. In the case of jury nullification and medical marijuana... and yes, even to the other five, there is some honest dispute about the legality or otherwise of said practices. This is what I've changed my view slightly: I'd not want people to advocate property crime or crimes of aggravation on Wikipedia, but I'd be perfectly fine with a userbox that said, for example, "I oppose homosexuality in all forms", even though I think a user who would have such a userbox would be a complete idiot. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationships?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Humm, I modified the (new) blocking policy to narrow the range of relationships that are problematic to "sexual". Should we have something similar here (perhaps "inappropriate"?) If we are going to allow children to edit here, we will by definition be forming relationships with them (even if we don't know they are children). What exactly are we shooting for? Hobit (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is a bit of an all-purpose weasel word. "Sexual" is clearer for the context of this page, without going into details.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Content control

Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

Also known as censorship. I'd like to see some support for self-censorship, censorship in schools or homes, and censorship by businesses or libraries of what is viewed on their premises.

It is a basic principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Yet there are strong taboos against letting children look up some sorts of subjects. If there are no supports for censoring some articles or images in Wikipedia then the whole service might be turned off.

What I envisage is the ability to tag pictures, sections of articles or whole articles with tags for various types of content. For ip users this would put markers into the html header which can be recognized by the browser to control whether the whole page is shown or not. Where the user is registered their personal preferences would hold information on this and just the censored bits removed.

As well as tags I'd allow some method for a domain to register preferences by somehow showing they own a domain and having a domain owner user. This could be used as a base level for all the individual ips with the domain, for instance in a whole school.

The use of tags would allow the type of content to be adjusted according to local custom of what is anaethma, e.g. naked children, sex, violence, science conflicting with religion, local politics, leaked information about scientology or whatever. If adults would turn away from Wikipedia otherwise then let them use it with blinkers on and support their use of blinkers and allow them to do the same for their children or people working in their workplace and using company computers. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This falls under no disclaimers in articles. It is common for schools, libraries and workplaces to have content-control software, but that is their decision and responsibility. It would be almost impossible for a Wikipedia policy to keep everyone happy on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I wasn't talking about any sort of banners on the page or anything like that, and people wouldn't even see the page if they self censored. The one there might be worry about in that guideline that I can see is 'The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits' in that someone might see a page with a nude on though they said they didn't want to see any nudes for instance. I believe this can be covered easily by the general disclaimer, content filter suppliers aren't sued for failing in their job. The most that would be seen on the page would be some little boxes at the bottom like the categories for instance so people wanting to check the tags could do that easily. In fact it might be possible to mark some categories so they can be used to support the functionality. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Using categories Category:Nudity for instance could be marked as a supported for self-censorship, maybe all categories could possibly be used but the mechanics might only support a limited number, then a person who censored that would get a blocked message if they tried to access Nude swimming for instance. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A small number of articles, including Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy have advice similar to this. The talk page explains WP:NOIMAGE. Broadening the scope to include Creationists being offended by pages about evolution etc. would be too controversial, and unlikely to gain policy acceptance, because WP:NDA applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about advice or any notice or banner. I'm talking about the user being able to stop themselves being shown pages or images they have prohibitions about. If they think God has told them that evolution is evil and will corrupt them it's not up to us to serve it to them when they say they don't want to see it. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I better spell it out clearer. If the tags used are categories then you would see absolutely no difference in the pages. There would be no warning notice, advice or banner. All that would change is that a person who says for instance they don't want to see nudity would be able get such pages blocked. And with a bit of extension a school for instance could block them by default for the whole domain. Dmcq (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOIMAGE is a sensible policy, but a person who believes that evolution is evil will just have to live with other people disagreeing with them. It is unlikely to be practical, or within Wikipedia policy, to allow people to cherry pick content from the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOIMAGE stops you from having to see images. As to the other - it is the purpose of an encyclopaedia to educate. If one does not want to be confronted with opposing views, I would recommend starting one's own wiki instead - YoungEarthopedia or something - where one can state to one's hearts content that the Devil added all the dinosaur skeletons, just to tempt the faithful into sin.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is exactly the sort of reasoning that led to the creation of Conservapedia. Hey, no worries with this site, now I can reinforce my favourite prejudices all day long. Wikipedia does not work like this, and nor should it attempt to go down this road.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude though could easily cause schools to ban the use of wikipedia. Wouldn't you much prefer for them to get a message saying a link has been blocked because of their sites content policy than to have them unable to use wikipedia at all? And personally I'd prefer the COnservapedia people to feel happy with blocking their view of uncomfortable facts on WIkipedia and yet having a notice come up saying this is a page containing content they have opted out of seeing? On Conservapedia they won't even get th warning that that there's any other ideas or opinions and that all their home schoolers might look at 'safely' without such facilities. Why I'd prefer even to have a message in China saying your government doesn't want you to see anything about this type subject coming up for the Dalai Lama. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. and for sex or nudism or anything about child molestation or other subjects a school very well migh want to stop views. If the articles that might be edited by paedophiles are blocked by the schools policy we would be helping them with implementing their child safety policy. Are we really going to say we are there to educate so we're not going to do anything about their children looking up about bestiality or the 69 position or whatever? Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenDNS is widely used by school, library and business computers. It offers wide ranging content control, and can be set to block any pages that the user wishes. This type of filtering is beyond the scope of Wikipedia policy, since it is almost impossible to allow for everything that a user might find offensive, contrary to local law, religious and social norms etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see your problem. It would not be up to Wikipedia to implement any particular filtering policy and I believe the setup and support costs would be quite low. The tagging work has in effect already been done and would continue to be done automatically. All it would do would be allow people to implement their own filtering policy. Just because it hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. We would not be giving any guarantees it would always be effective or anything like that but it would probably be a lot more sensible than most filtering. It wouldn't automatically ban a page because of some phrase like 'made a clean breast of it' and it would be much better than most at filtering images. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The only effect I can see to the general Wikipedia community is that there would be more attention on categories with vandals misusing them and editors trying harder to get them just right. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's role to censor it's own content - that would hit right at the heart of the project. WP:NOIMAGEstarted out for people with slow dialups, and remains useful for people who edit on mobile devices. Allowing people to not load images because they might feature titties is a side effect. If someone wants to not see content they can avoid the site or the article - if a school or parent wants to control junior's access, they can use any one of the dozens of propriatory solutions out there. Britannica does not sell a version of it's encyclopaedia with some of the pages ripped out - why should we. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Australian government's Internet filtering plans to see why this type of scheme is controversial. Ultimately, any content on Wikipedia is guaranteed to comply with State of Florida law, and does not give guarantees that users will not be offended by it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to summarize for myself what your objections are. I simply don't see anything except that you don't like the word censorship an don't want anything that can be associated with it even though millions of people pay good money to censor themselves or their children. I'm not talking about censoring or changing the content of Wikipedia. I'm talking about letting institutions or people self censor more easily. This is what schools do. Lots of schools don't want to allow their pupils to see everything that is allowed by the state of Florida. Are we saying we don't want to cater for schools because that's censorship? That some outside body will have to work out for itself how to get anything useful out of Wikipedia and we're just sitting sullenly by and don't want to help? I see it also as protecting Wikipedia in the future from outside imposed censorship. There's no guaranteed what kind of weird way fashions will go in the future about what is allowed generally and being able to say the site has facilities for child or other safe reading will protect the content from such storms. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just advise schools to always use Wikipedia 2008-9 Selection for Schools and avoid letting them use Wikipedia straight if people cannot stand the idea o helping people censor content for their children. If that isn't the Foundation applying its own censorship I don't know what is so I don't know how the editors above stand for it. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I commented on a way to do this at strategy:Proposal:Provide services to facilitate "child-safe" and selective mirror sites: I think that historical versions of articles should be more readily available with less "wrapper" so that people can more easily assemble their own versions of Wikipedia from known approved past versions. But I don't think it's a good idea to bring any of that sort of work onto the site itself. If people rely on a content tag that is on this site, for example, then the tagging of their content could change unexpectedly, defeating their purpose; and then there will be endless recriminations here about when people should alter such tags, and so forth. This site is a wholesale, industrial operation, a hard hat area, a meat-packing plant for information. Those seeking to make the content "acceptable" are doing retail business, for a certain target audience, a certain culture and so forth. They need their own location. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully approve of special editions as well even if this proposal was adopted. What extra work would it be for Wikipedia itself? I think the overheads could be made quite small for those implementing filtering and practically zero for those without filtering. The main machine overhead I guess would be some extra work checking the categories when storing edited pages but it would have to do some of that already. Normal editors and users would see absolutely no difference. I agree for small children you want a selected version but they have to be educated to use the internet sensibly at some time and over that age they would be asked to look up recent things like the oil spill. And they're the ones that will look up sex acts and suchlike. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Dmcq - Can you not see the difference between "here is a subset of articles which are particularly relevant for schools" and a proposal to tag all wikipedia articles so that the Flat Earthers don't need to see anything that suggests that the world is round.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We already tag the articles and why exactly should we not cater for Conservapedia types? They were driven away because Wikipedia made no concessions to them at all, with self filtering they wouldn't have such an excuse to set up the pile of rubbish they do which dare I say it is far safer than Wikipedia as far as lots of anxious parents are concerned. With this they would be told when they are going into forbidden territory instead of just being given the TRUTH according to Andy Schlafly with no ifs or buts. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We've wandered way off topic here. When I go to the local library, it has a huge range of keywords that it will not allow searches on, eg Casino and Lingerie. Let other users have this type of filtering if they want, but Wikipedia is not censored.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect you if you don't use it. Why do you want to stop other people doing what they want to do? I see no relevant bit in WP:NOTCENSORED. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We can't really debate the overall policy of WP:NOTCENSORED here. It is more of a WP:VILLAGEPUMP issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've raised a question about NOTCENSORED at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NOTCENSORED_and_content_control. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way, such tags should allow all kinds of people to select their blocks; not only the hyperconservatists, otherwise it is an example of disguised POV pushing. For example a pacifist should then be able to block all references to violence, war and weapons; a vegetarian would block animal products etc.. How would you enforce that? If this would be rigorously applied throughout across multiple value sets, in the end every article would likely have a number of such tags. That would be a maintenance nightmare. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

E-mail address in the article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it OK to use "mailto" HTML tags on a Wikipedia page? They are well known for being spam magnets, with bots programmed to look out for them while crawling the web. The previous version used a nospam link, while Wikipedia's contact page uses an SVG version of the @ symbol.[2]

Also, someone raised the issue of how long it takes for ArbCom to reply to e-mails sent to this address. Any thoughts here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use the "mailto" tags; the arbcom-L mailing list gets more than enough spam as it is. There are multiple mailing list admins, and the messages awaiting moderation are usually checked a couple of times a day and sent through. There's usually an acknowledgement within 24 hours, and response time can vary from a few hours to a few days, depending on the nature of the subject. (Unblock requests go to BASC, for example.) Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

If there is support for the last paragraph, about alternatively reporting to WP:AN/I, I missed it. I believe this would be a serious error of judgement and a serious breach of privacy for the user named. I suspect there are also grave legal consequences. I strongly recommend the paragraph be eliminated. Bielle (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it has been fixed. Bielle (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the policy description page to make it consistent with the language in the blocking policy. If anyone wants to revert and discuss please do so. Minor4th • talk 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the last sentence to match the voice of this page, rather than the blocking page. Feel free to amend/remove. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I did it hastily and your version says what it needs to say. Minor4th • talk 22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

We risk getting into a new mess if WP:BLOCK and WP:CHILDPROTECT have different wordings. I have tweaked the wording here, and believe that it should be the same in WP:BLOCK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. I think you added language that limited the scope to activity just on wikipedia when the policy is related to activity and self-identification outside this project. I think the two sections are consistent now. Minor4th • talk 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that off-wiki activity should be taken into consideration. The main problem now is that by giving this page merely informational status, it becomes somewhat superfluous. It would be better to state the policy clearly at WP:BLOCK rather than repeating it virtually word for word here, which makes little sense. It also means that if anyone edited WP:BLOCK, this page would become inaccurate, which is far from ideal for such an important subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Either it has to match or it has to be clearly different. How about this page saying

Wikipedia takes seriously concerns about the safety of children using the site. See block policy for more information about what this means in practice. If you are concerned about a user who you think might be violating this policy, please email yadda yadda.

That way, it never goes into details about the policy, but makes it clear that we have one, and this is the steps that you the concerned user/parent/teacher should take.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems promising. It makes little sense to have virtually the same wording as policy on one page, and "information" on another. Let's try to fix this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not do away with this page and redirect it to the Child protection section of WP:BLOCK? Is it possible to have a redirect point to a particular section? Minor4th • talk 06:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible with the redirect Wikipedia:BLOCK#Child_protection_issues. However, it has the disadvantage that if anyone changed the section title, the link would stop working immediately. Although this page is brief, it just about works as a separate page and should stay for the time being. Otherwise we might end up with more debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Minor4th • talk 06:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This IS possible to do by putting an anchor in the text (add "id=NAME" to almost any HTML tag). A link to Wikipedia talk:Child protection#POLICYNAME will land readers here, for example. There's a template to do this at Template:anchor. I've added these so that WP:BLOCK#Child protection issues and WP:BLOCK#Pedophilia will land readers at that section despite any change in name (unless someone objects/reverts, that is). I support the idea of a redirect, as I think that duplicating a policy page will inevitably lead to trouble, especially when we've had the sort of weird status issues as with this one. This will mean that future debate goes on there, of course, but I think that will help to get a broader audience, while changes already made to the wording will ensure that the debate itself is more focussed. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer policy?

Latest comment: 14 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

How did this go from policy when it was called WP:PEDOPHILIA to an information page now that it is called WP:Child protection? Either it is policy or it isn't - the fact that it is included in WP:BLOCK doesn't make it not policy anymore. Jimbo has been explicit that he considers this to be policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still policy, but the policy statement is included within WP:BLOCK -- here: [3]

I have not been able to get on Wiki for the last three hours. I assume the servers were down or something. --Minor4th • talk 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, there was little point in repeating the same wording in two locations. Since WP:BLOCK is the overall policy issue, it makes sense to have the full and detailed wording there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's useful to have this page to link to from the advice for kids and the advice for parents sections. I think it could actually be in friendlier language - I'll have a think on it. The policy is still alive and well, and living in WP:BLOCK. For some reason, certain sections seem to find it easier to have "this is the policy on who we will block....(46) Paedohpiles" rather than "we have a policy on blocking paedophiles". Go figure. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to rehash earlier discussions, but this is not a community-derived or controlled policy (although WP:BLOCK is). This is a policy that has been articulated by Sue Gardner of the WMF and affirmed by Jimbo. Since we all seem to agree that this is policy, would anyone have strong objections if I marked it as such? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's not rehash earlier arguments about WP:CONEXCEPT. There is a clear community consensus that users who are involved in inappropriate relationships with children, or promoting them as legitimate, will not be allowed to have editing privileges on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of having Wikipedia:Child protection instead of Wikipedia:Pedophilia? It would be exactly the same argument all over again. --Conti|✉ 12:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The main policy is WP:BLOCK, which determines who is allowed to have editing privileges on the site. Wikipedia:Child protection was deemed to be a more NPOV term than the Fox News-friendly Wikipedia:Pedophilia (comment on content, not contributors etc). WP:CHILDPROTECT is an information page, which outlines the policy without going into too much detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ianmacm, you seem to be agreeing that this is policy, but declaring that it is policy through "community consensus" - is that correct? The only reason this is now policy in any sense is that it was decreed to be so by Jimbo (and by Sue Gardner and prior to that by ARBCOM apparently, although any trace of that remain elusive). One need only look at the history of WP:Pedophilia, the discussions on the talk page, and the short-circuiting of the RfC to see that the community is strongly divided on this policy. I believe we both wish to see this policy in place, but I am growing increasingly tired of your false and/or misleading statements here. Failing other objections, I will mark this as policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. All that will happen is the shitstorm will start again. This page does NOT need to be labelled policy for there to be a policy of zero tolerance towards paedophiles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not mean that everyone agreed. It looks from the discussion like Delicious carbuncle was in borderline WP:DEADHORSE territory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ianmacm, can you please provide me a link to the discussion where you think there was consensus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for what? If you look in archive2, there was a considerable discussion about moving the content and the pages about, and numbers of admins and others were involved. I don't know why you keep insisting all this has been done by ianmacm.

As discussed above, I have modified the page so that if coming at it from Advice for younger editors or Advice for parents (should be added to Advice for teachers if we have such a section) the focus is on giving immediate advice. Feel free to amend/revert.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for this as a policy, not consensus for moving the policy content into WP:BLOCK. Ianmacm is claiming that the policy has consensus -- "There is a clear community consensus that users who are involved in inappropriate relationships with children, or promoting them as legitimate, will not be allowed to have editing privileges on Wikipedia." -- this is simply not the case. My concern here is that we need to clearly state that this is a policy (and a policy not revokable by the community) or we will face more of the same types of argument about it and news stories about paedophiles on Wikipedia until we do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Surely you've got it the wrong way round though. All the community decided was where to put the words. All those involved in the move agreed that the policy was as the policy did. But it's not sufficiently clear, given that the header on the block page refers to community consensus....OK, edit-warring over this page isn't the way to go (and will only start the shitstorm up again). Perhaps that section of BLOCK needs a separate notice.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to edit this page at all, let alone "edit war". I would be satisfied with some kind of separate notice at WP:BLOCK. I note that the likely endless discussions have already started on the talk page there... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, did not at all mean you were edit warring - I was thinking of the previous shitstorm. Deep apologies. I have suggested on the talkpage of the other place that it may warrant some kind of statement that this policy is not susceptible to change.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the WP:CONEXCEPT argument. See the redirect argument at [4]. Everyone seemed to be happy except Carbuncle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Everyone seemed to be happy except Carbuncle". That is a pattern of distraction, he'll rehash the same wind-ups on multiple pages until ordered publicly not to. Don't take it personally, he just doesn't "hear" it. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he's actually raised a valid point. Carbuncle's concern is that WP:BLOCK says it is a community consensus policy -

which can be altered by community discussion, but it contains this, which is a policy by fiat, which cannot be altered by the community. So there is a risk of another shitstorm if some unwitting tries to alter it (as is just possibly stirring at the moment, although I believe Powers to be a sensible chap).Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I didn't participate in the linked discussion. Note that Ianmacm has yet to provide the requested link to support their claim that there is "community consensus" for this policy. I find it odd that an IP who openly disagrees with the policy is attempting to derail my attempts at solidifying that policy. If calling people on bullshit is beating a deadhorse then, yes, I'll do that until asked to stop. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is policy by fiat. It's a long-standing policy of the community, developed by the community through a shared understanding of what constitutes disruption. When Sue Gardner called it a policy, she was describing, not prescribing. I really think we need leave the issue of the policy tag alone now. Kotniski came up with an elegant solution, so let's not mess with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to understand it is this: First and foremost, SlimVirgin is absolutely right: "It's a long-standing policy of the community, developed by the community through a shared understanding of what constitutes disruption." Second, it is fully endorsed and has been implemented for a long time by ArbCom. Third, I fully support it and I am willing to do so in my formal traditional role in the English Wikipedia, including the reserved powers of WP:CONEXCEPT. Fourth, it has been publicly stated by Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia Foundation as policy. If anyone has any doubts about the first thing, or the second thing, then there's the third and the fourth thing. It couldn't be any more policy than it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On what planet? Every time this comes up, nearly half of all editors who stick their heads above the parapet do not agree with the self-identification block. There's no community consensus for it, it's there because Jimbo said so.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No sooner said than contradicted. I'm taking this off my watchlist now, as we seem to be back to square one, and life's too short. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:) But did he policificate the WP:WRONG VERSION? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Carbuncle again misses the point and chooses to target other editors rather than simply focus on discussing the issue at hand. Let's repeat this, the discussion have nearly universal support to direct the page here, you were the lone opposer from what I saw. And non-discrimination clauses dictate that we can't write a policy that all people with disease X are de facto banned. We now seem to be saying instead that self-disclosing you have this disease likely will get you blocked. Those are two different issues. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're back to square one. The fact is, Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, and many policies here originated with him; even when I think he's not quite right about one I have to recognize that. There's a huge difference between recognizing this prerogative, and allowing (as was originally claimed) for ArbCom to make policy on its own against community consensus. Because ArbCom is an elected organization, which could take on a membership with any possible agenda, we would have to worry that groups with any possible agenda could get together and get enough people elected to impose their agenda, however extreme. And I think we have made major improvements to the wording that remove much of the sense that the policy could be used to punish those opposing it or with various political beliefs.

At this point what the discussion needs to go forward is the case of an ex-pedophile; someone who has actually been treated effectively for the condition — clearly such a person should have unique knowledge to contribute mightily to the cause of protecting children, and I think Wikipedia really will have a duty to help information like that reach those in need of it, as this could prevent more atrocities than any amount of patrolling ever will. I think that the policy, even as written, should not be taken to exclude such an invaluable contributor. From there we move on to the cases of those undergoing treatment with sincerity but varying degrees of success (or at least, deeply committed not to harm children). I think that that is not really such a large distance - I think that the "pro" and "con" sides of the great debate are actually standing pretty close together by this point. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there is something still to be discussed, please note that this policy is not controlled by the community and direct your discussion to the appropriate people. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wnt is asking the exact questions that should be focussed on and hysteria should be replaced with reasonable discussion how to ensure our content maintains quality standards without being sensationalistic, etc. If such a case were to come up I think a "reformed" user could edit here but would have to make a fresh start and if they already had a history it might make sense that they disclose to Arbcom although it may be safer for them not to disclose to anyone and take extra care in contributing any content in these areas. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is policy

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

And I have tagged it as such. Do not revert without the explicit approval of me and/or the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was right that WP:BLOCK was the policy, and this was more of an information page related to that policy. I have no issue with this being marked as policy, but then we must make sure it's based on hard facts an not an any subjective moral standpoint. _→AzaToth 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. This page doesn't include the pedophilia policy; it only provides advice to children to contact ArbCom if they feel threatened. If the children violate that instruction, nobody's going to sanction them... except the not so ethical pedophiles, that is. Above people were discussing redirecting this page to the WP:BLOCK subsection entirely, which I think is a good idea. Wnt (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this has now been marked as policy with instructions not to untag it, I think the actual policy should be contained on this page rather than the watered down informational prose that currently exists. Yes, it is duplicative of what's in the BLOCK section, but Jimbo apparently wants a policy page on its own. At the risk of whatever consequences and in a good faith effort to accomplish what I believe Jimbo is trying to memorialize as policy, I am going to move the wording from the BLOCK section to this policy page. As usual, feel free to revert my bold edit and discuss. Minor4th • talk 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

May I also recommend a brief pause in further editing the policy (whether it remains here or on BLOCK) until we figure out if this is what is intended by Jimbo and the Foundation?Minor4th • talk 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Questioning another editor about whether they are a pedophile, or pedophilia advocate

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

In light of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Off2riorob_blocked, I propose adding a sentence that users harbouring suspicions that another editor is a pedophile, or advocates pedophilia, must not ask questions or post accusations to that effect on the user's talk page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Any communication on this point should be by private mail only, and/or a mail to arbcom. Any such questions posted on a user's talk page should be revdeleted. --JN 466 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Off2riorob blocking incident, so I won't comment on that. But a big part of the purpose of this policy, and the reason it evolved over time as a balanced approach to handle several complex issues, is precisely that it helps prevent witch hunts and potentially damaging/libelous commentary on site. So yes, Jay2n466 - something to that effect makes a lot of sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that the wording at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Child_protection_issues does address this to some extent; but it might be worth spelling it out here as well, or adding a more prominent link to that paragraph. It's important. --JN 466 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ianmacm#Apropos_recent_discussion. Few things are more likely to enrich the legal profession than an extended discussion on a Wikipedia talk page about whether User A is a pedophile. The policy is also designed to prevent unnecessary witch hunts, as Jimbo points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We had a sentence to that effect on this page which got lost in moves. I've put it back, but if someone wants to add to BLOCK as well, that would be fine.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. And somewhere we need to say that such questions if asked publicly should be normally subject to revdel - even the question can have RL consequences. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That would go better in BLOCK I think, as it's an admin action, and should be an instruction to administrators.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Howzat? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked. Okay? --JN 466 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Jimbo marked the page as policy with instructions not to untag it, I moved the actual policy over here from the BLOCK section, as I believe this is what Jimbo was intending to mark as policy. Please discuss. I will post a note on Jimbo's talk page. Minor4th • talk 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The old version contained advice for younger editors, which is now missing. I thought the intro was useful too. Otherwise I agree that it makes sense to use identical wording wherever possible. Diff --JN 466 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is still a link to the advice to younger editors and adults. I placed a message on Jimbo's talk page, so maybe we can wait for a response before we edit it significantly further? Minor4th • talk 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff on Jimbo's talk page for reference: [5] Minor4th • talk 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has responded [6]:

Your change is correct, but I don't think it makes a huge difference. There is no reason why a policy page shouldn't be informational as well. :-) But my overall point is that just as we have things like WP:BLP which are policy, and which also have implications for blocking policy, there is no reason to "hide" this very important policy in the block policy page. It's worthy of a standalone page, because it is firm policy and it is important policy. Ideally, all policy pages should be in agreement with each other, and harmonized from time to time if discrepancies appear. I think it is absolutely fine to haveWP:Child protection as a useful standalone policy page, and to re-iterate and emphasize the point in WP:BLOCK as well -Jimbo Wales

I have added back in the information to younger editors in the spirit of his comment. Minor4th • talk 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've added the lead sentence from the old version, just so the text doesn't start quite so abruptly. Diff. --JN 466 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was written in a slightly different voice because the Advice for kids and Advice for moms sections both point here, so I'm glad to see that Jimbo doesn't have a problem with the extra advice for someone visiting the page who is either a junior editor or the mom/teacher of same. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that asking a question like "Are you, are have you ever been a pedophile/member of the Communist Party/..." is forbidden. But what about one editor saying to another "I don't know if you're a pedophile or not ...". Forbidding the asking of questions seems very dangerous to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Comments posted anywhere in project space that suggest that an editor may be a paedophile must be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid privacy issues. Concerns should be raised only by email ..." I think that covers the kind of wording you mention as well. On another matter, is "privacy issues" the right word? --JN 466 20:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means pick a better one. My concern was what happens if for some reason you're wrong (just seen a good example of that go by - no LOLs for the person involved) - what's the get out if you've plastered 'Boo is a child molester' all over Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking a question implies only that I don't know the answer. Forbidding questions is a rather worrying development. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was that "privacy" sounds as though we assume the person is a pedophile, but we want to enable them to keep it private. Whereas we are probably primarily concerned about people who aren't pedophiles, yet might find themselves accused of being one. I am not sure whether "privacy" is the correct word in that case; it seems more akin to libel than privacy. But "libel issues" isn't the right word either. I can live with it as it stands for the time being. --JN 466 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 It doesn't actually say that you can't ask the question or make the kind of contemplation that you mentioned. I agree that asking a question is not necessarily an accusation and having a policy that detailed is going to lead down the slippery slope and lead to gamesmanship (but isn't that true of all policy?). On Off2riorob's AN/I there does seem to be quite a lot of outrage, but then again I didn't vote with the majority over there. Here is what the policy actually says, and I think this is little overboard but probably not a bad practice in any event:

Comments posted anywhere in project space that suggest that an editor may be a paedophile must be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid privacy issues.

As in all things, common sense has to be the overriding principle. Minor4th • talk 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::::::Ridiculous, Study after study shows that child abuse is most often done by someone close to the child. Online child abuse moves along the same lines but this site is not for idle chat and socializing which is needed to build online trust. If someone offers you money to send them a photo your first instinct should be what on earth does that have to do with an encyclopedia. Child abuse happens in churches and schools, do they ban children from them? Of course not. If you suspect someone is a young editor you might helpfully guide them to WP:YOUNG. We don't ban victims because there are predators on Wikipedia we address obvious cases and discuss less clear ones. Existing policies pretty much cover this territory but Fox News needs to build hysteria to boost ratings, Wikipedia doesn't. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well talk to Jimmy Wales and the Foundation because he tagged the policy and gave instructions not to revert the tag without permission from him or the Foundation. No one is talking about banning children, the discussion is about banning predators or children or suspected predators. And yes predators are banned from churches and schools. Fox News got it wrong, but enough people watch Fox and will believe the report, and the subject of pedophilia is socially repugnant enough that it's not unreasonable to want the long-standing unwritten policy to now be a written policy. Minor4th • talk 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may mean well but are woefully uninformed. No one stops everyone at the church door to quiz them if they are a predator, likely because people can simply lie so what's the point. We don't need to knee-jerk react to everything Fox News reports. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

inappropriate?

Latest comment: 14 years ago39 comments12 people in discussion

Perhaps some sort of definition/examples/links to legal documents that somehow defines where inappropriate line goes. _→AzaToth 18:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is a rather vague and overused weasel word. Many forms of behaviour could be described as inappropriate, but here we are talking about sexual behaviour that would be considered illegal in most Western jurisdictions. It was agreed not to use legalistic language that would be hard to enforce, so maybe "inappropriate sexual behaviour" is better. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it sounds better _→AzaToth 19:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a web site. Short of live cameras on WP, how can "behaviour" here be "sexual"? Language can be, certainly, but even a request for a "real name" or an email address may well be "inappropriate" in this context. The word is just fine for this use; anything more specific may well lead to wikilawyering. Bielle (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bielle. --JN 466 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's not that the phrasing is so bad per se, but can you imagine trying to figure out what "inappropriate relationship" indicated if you pulled it out of a dictionary while trying to translate some Chinese? Changing "inappropriate adult-child relationships" to "sexual relationships between adults and children" would make the policy a bit less refined, perhaps, but it would be much easier for those with poor English skills to understand. (Another issue is that the age is not specified, and in particular, it isn't specified whether it changes with the country, but I'm not sure if you want to get into that at this point) Wnt (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy has to apply regardless of country, so references to local and national laws are unsuitable. Still worried, though, about the vagueness of the word "inappropriate".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think most people, in particular parents, would understand readily enough what is meant by "inappropriate". To me, "inappropriate" would be attempts by an adult to get a minor editor to divulge their real-life identity and place of residence, attempts to arrange a meeting in real life without the parents' knowledge, or more generally anything that gives a minor the feeling that they are receiving an unwelcome amount of personal attention and personal questions from an adult, whether by posts in project space, or by personal e-mail. --JN 466 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not more defined because it requires evaluation of whether there is a real issue, a misunderstanding, something that is legal even if it is tasteless, or whatever. We can't define everything down to the n'th degree. I always like the wording of Law 37 [7] It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. Sometimes, you just have to use a real live human.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It has been clarified to read "inappropriate adult-child relationships". Now come on y'all, everyone knows what it means in spirit. Don't brush up against it or test the limits if you are really unclear about the parameters. At some point the parsing has to end. Minor4th • talk 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of us would agree on what the spirit of the policy is about, but never rule out the potential for wikilawyering (or real lawyering).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would constitute "inappropriate sexual behaviour" which, to me, implies some kind of direct physical contact. That's in the scope of law enforcement rather than Wikipedia to address, although the standard exception to the privacy policy would apply. There is a reason why almost every single policy we have on this project contains slightly vague words: not all situations can be anticipated and thus we should not word policies in a way that prevents us from taking action when an unanticipated situation arises. I don't think we've really addressed the paedophile-advocacy-pushing aspect of these situations, which are also very harmful to the project (for example, including coatracks in existing articles or developing new coatracks that imply historical figures had paedophilic proclivities, or giving those relationships undue weight), although that could perhaps be addressed under the NPOV and RS policies. Risker (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's actually more of a concern for us - if no-one stopped the pov activities, the information we give to others would be extremely skewed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Risker raises a very good point, as the behavior he describes is exactly the kind of advocacy we're likely to see -- as opposed to someone coming right out and saying "I think pedophilia is cool and should be legal". I don't, however, think there is a way to specifically address it other than to say advocacy of pedophilia will not be tolerated and it will have to be up to the community to monitor pages where that is likely to take place and report to ArbCom if there's a question. (BTW -- this is why I was a little uneasy about off2riorob's block .. I did think that JMilburn's comments were exactly the type of subtle advocacy that takes place and Rob reacted to it in a similar spirit as Jimbo reacted to the Fox News report .. it's not tolerated, period, and we don't wait around for someone to explain why it looks like they're advocating in that manner.) In this instance, I don't think that was JMilburn's intent, but how is that decision made and how far does that kind of commentary go before action is taken? Minor4th • talk 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Risker is a she, but I daren't ask in case I get blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic though, I don't see why special rules are needed for pedophilia. An article advocating, say Communism, or capital punishment, would be equally unacceptable, given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia with a neutral pov. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If an editor thinks it has gone on for too long, they should mail arbcom with diffs and leave it up to them. Risker is right about advocacy via content, but the situation she describes can be handled through existing content policies. This child protection policy is not the right place for it. --JN 466 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, This is a real life issue involving children, not an abstract concept like Communism or a political issue like capital punishment. Drop the rhetoric for one second and realize that some things need a different standard because of adverse real world effects.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Assuming that children need to be protected on wikipedia, how is that possible when nobody knows who the children are? Are you a child? Am I? The discussion so far appears to be about protecting editors from charges of pedophilia, nothing to do with protecting children. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on wikipedia and leave it at that. Any suspicion should be dealt with via e-mail.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspicion of what? Being a child, or being a pedophile? I repeat my question. How can you protect the children on wikipedia if you don't know who they are? Article are already protected by the usual NPOV rules, so why is pedophilia a special case? I'm not especially fond of ... no better not say it ... Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Children can be identified by their writing skills and WP:MYSPACE tendencies. I don't understand why you are asking for clarification, but I am referring to suspicions that someone is advocating pedophilia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Can they really? If wikipedia is so serious about child protection, then why does it not take even the basic step of asking a new user to confirm that they are over whatever minimum age is considered acceptable? The answer, of course, is that wikipedia is not serious about child protection, and that this whole charade is just a publicity stunt. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what some may think, one of the busiest areas for oversighters is suppressing personal information about minors. It took some work to get that accepted into the community oversight policy, but it's a solidly accepted reason for suppression now. Risker (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know why wikipedia chose that route, rather than ask the question on registration, and it seems bizarre in the context of this pedophilia discussion. We have children administrators deciding what other children should or shouldn't see. In what world is that rational? Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, Malleus, oversighters are all identified to the WMF and must provide proof of being over the age of 18 and of majority in the country where they live. As far as I can tell, there has never been a requirement for any Wikipedia *editor* (i.e., one without access to checkuser or oversight data) to provide proof of identity or age, or any other personal information. This project was created by and survives on the contributions of anonymous and pseudonymous editors (yourself included). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. If the rule changes, and you have to give your age (with proof) before you next log in, are you still going to log in? Risker (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The points I'm making are the obvious ones, which you have equally obviously chosen to ignore for whatever reason. You cannot protect children on wikipedia unless you know who the children are, and any pro-pedophilia bias in an article, or any other bias, is already dealt with by NPOV. My question to you is why this furore about pedophilia? My answer is that it's a publicity stunt, without any real substance. As to your direct question, of course I'd have no objection about providing proof of my age. I only wish that administrators were equally willing to provide such proof. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, really? We can't protect children unless we identify them? Really? I think we should have protections for all editors and generally we do. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can say, Malleus, is that the moral panic hasn't really come from within the group who have this put on our plate; seems everyone else is all up in arms about it, but it's long been settled from the perspective of a very significant part of the community. Blocks of paedophiles and paedophile advocates has been happening for years, and suppression of personal information about minors has been happening since shortly after the suppression feature became available. Neither were instituted in a media frenzy, and the fact that many WP editors were unaware of this illustrates that the decisions were hardly publicity stunts. And I would suppose that if the WMF decides to require proof of age for editors, it would certainly include administrators. I'm glad that you feel pro-paedophilia bias is well addressed under NPOV; it hasn't been my own observation, but I realise that I seem to have more than the average amount of unpleasantry brought to my attention compared to most editors.

Incidentally, you were correct above, I am a woman. And if someone blocked you for saying that, I'd lift the block personally. Risker (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I feel that pro-paedophilia bias is well addressed under NPOV, and neither did say that I don't believe it is well addressed under NPOV. What I said was that I don't see why there's such a song and dance about this one issue, and that the only reason I can see to single this one issue out is the media feeding frenzy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, on that point, I quite agree with you. It certainly wasn't an issue on-wiki until the media got all excited about it. I confess being disappointed in having misunderstood your position on NPOV, though; I was hoping that you, as someone who spends more time working with content than I do, would have been in a position to better analyse the situation, but I can entirely respect that it may not be an issue to which you had given much consideration. Risker (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I've spent no time at all looking at what the pov issues are with paedophilia-related articles, although I'm quite aware of how poorly those issues are handled with Irish Republican articles, for instance. My attention was only drawn here because I was accused of calling another editor a paedophile, and continue to be threatened by that editor with undisclosed consequences. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Ridiculous, Study after study shows that child abuse is most often done by someone close to the child. Online child abuse moves along the same lines but this site is not for idle chat and socializing which is needed to build online trust. If someone offers you money to send them a photo your first instinct should be what on earth does that have to do with an encyclopedia. Child abuse happens in churches and schools, do they ban children from them? Of course not. If you suspect someone is a young editor you might helpfully guide them to WP:YOUNG. We don't ban victims because there are predators on Wikipedia we address obvious cases and discuss less clear ones. Existing policies pretty much cover this territory but Fox News needs to build hysteria to boost ratings, Wikipedia doesn't. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is not a policy imposed by community consensus and we are unable to revoke it, your arguments here, however convincing they may be to some, are not helpful. If you have suggestions for improving the wording of the policy feel free to contribute, otherwise please take your discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Carbuncle you have again injected a misinformed comment on an issue that most others have moved on from. And as you seem to suffer from an inability to keep issues focussed in one venue it's rather hypocritical for you to play guardian of the conversation. You may wish to heed your own advice rather than encouraging others to leave. Reasonable editors are here having a healthy discussion about a complex issue so either participate in developing concensus without badgering or move on. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that without the ability to change this policy, your attempts to form consensus here are misplaced. I encourage you to hop on the bus and visit the WMF offices to discuss the issue with the people in control of the policy. Just please stop trying to engage people here in a fruitless echo chamber. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being argumentative and confrontational for no reason. And everyone else here is working not to wind up other editors but build concensus. If there is any echo chamber it is within you. You are distracting from the salient points being thoughtfully worked out by others. If you don't feel the consensus is going your way, again, then you can take a bus wherever you need to go and argue with whom you wish. Please stop picking fights, it distracts from healthy discussion. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PAUSE This section has started to drag on and become incivil. Please raise new (and preferably different) concerns in a new section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for getting side-tracked. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought police

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments9 people in discussion

Under this policy we're banning pedophile who might not advocate for pedophilia. That passage should be stricken off. Uploading and promoting pedophilia should be bannable yes, but simply being a pedophile should not be bannable. If pedophiles are banned, then this starts a slippery slope of thought police. If we crack down on one kind of crimical just for being criminal outside of Wikipedia, what will be next? Murderers being banned? Pirates? People who go faster than speed limits? These are all illegal behaviours, yet we'd never think of banning people who admitted being pirates if they don't use Wikipedia articles to promote piracy and copyright infringements.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple: Don't ask, don't tell.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but it is policy that users will not advocate/promote/pursue sexual relationships that are illegal in most jurisdictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An individual openly advertising that they are/were a pedophile is not helpful to the project and should result in an indefinite block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly going to be disruptive to say on Wikipedia - and why would one do it. But the policy also (mostly) applies to people who have self identified elsewhere - on forums where there can be no doubt that they are not only a paedophile but also a child molester. The 'thought police' argument is something of a red herring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)that's a circular argument. I havn't yet seen any proof that the fact that openly admit that one is an pedophile implies one is here to do bad things. _→AzaToth 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Don't ask, don't tell" is nothing that should be implemented anywhere in my opinion, as it implies that one should hide your own identity and display a social acceptable image instead, which really breaks WP:NPOV _→AzaToth 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification as a pedophile is the same as advocacy. There is no place for that on here. If you disagree then you legitimize the viewpoint that advocacy is acceptable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. One can self-identify as an alcoholic without advocating binge drinking, as a convicted felon without advocating committing felonies, etc etc. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're drawing comparisons that don't work. The only reason one would identify as a pedophile is to advocate that it is acceptable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually have any proof for that statement? As long there are no proofs, your statement is merely an hypothesis, and there can be more reasons. _→AzaToth 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is common sense. I ask that you think of another reason, or to think of a time when it would be acceptable for someone to self-identify as a pedophile on wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not on me to prove the contrary, I'm no medical expert, but I can do a try anyway. One case could be someone who has been pedophile, whom is undergoing treatment, and want to make sure people know they should keep an eye on him, so he doesn't fall back into it. _→AzaToth 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And how often has that happened in the past?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No(few at least) one knows, as them all has been indef blocked, and their identification has been deleted. _→AzaToth 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you can't monitor their e-mails. it wouldn't really do any good to identify for that reason.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel there is a fault in logic that the only reasons to identify as someone who is or empathizes with pedofiliacs is to advocate, push POV, etc. However there is a more pressing concern noted above that culturally to do so remains a form of suicide or self-ostracism. Having said that there are many cultures that see no problem with sexual relations with teenagers and even children, or at least they deny it even goes on. One of the documentaries on Frontline was all about very young boys who are sold to wealthy men as dancers and sex is often involved. The likelihood that one of those men would in turn come to edit here and disclose such information seems slim but it's not improbable. Having stated that, on another language wiki such statements may be dismissed easily as hoax or misinterpreted. The bottom line remains not that someone will automatically be advocating and pushing POV but they likely should never disclose this information from the near certainty that it will cause disruption to the project. Likewise the revealing of someone else being pedofilia. All such questions and statements need to be kept off public discussion and off talkpages to minimize disruption and unintended consequences. If Arbcom is the place or the Foundation is the place to field these issues then direct them there but hysteria is whipped up almost anywhere the topic is brought up. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. Every time this comes up for any kind of discussion, it generates the same whirlwind. Disclosure would produce an unholy row every time - that's why this policy insists that issues can only be reported via email to Arbcom, otherwise fights break out, accusations are made in public etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's not an individual's place to say why someone else should self-identify and if it would do any good; it's a personal feeling that some feel that they should be open about themselves. Self-identification ≠ advocacy, so please stop pretending that it is. I completely accept Aza's example (as with the others who have also used similar arguments in archives of this page), and only one example is needed to dispel your false claim. Self-identifying as a practicing sexual offender is disruptive; at least to me, stating that you have a medical condition isn't. While this policy is well-intentioned and more clear than it was last week, it is still unnecessarily broad in who it covers. Preventing self-identification hides the problem, prevents the individuals in question from participating in this debate, and removes neutrality preventing all edits from individuals willing to admit they have a problem. —Ost (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe someone with a userbox that says "this user is a pedophile" is not trying to normalize and gain acceptance for their beliefs.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, let's try not to wikilawyer over this. Also as mentioned before, "self-identification" would include off-wiki activity, where support for pedophilia is made very clear by some people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear at all that this policy refers to off-wiki activity, but the point is moot. This is a policy that is not under the control of the community and therefore debates here are not useful. Please address you comments to Jimbo, Sue Gardner, ARBCOM, or the WMF. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is not moot and this is the place to come to some reasonable concensus how to move forward. Please stop suggesting everyone else needs to stop discussing these complex issues. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

71, Carbuncle is abrupt, but correct. We have just been round this loop once - check the page archives. There is a zero tolerance policy: no self identification, no advocacy, nothing that looks like illegal activity. This cannot be changed or taken away from, or have get-out clauses added to it. We can change the formatting, and the odd word, and that;s about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was brought to the attention of Wikipedia that an editor was openly identifying as a pedophile in an off-wiki forum, this would almost certainly lead to an investigation of his on-wiki activities. On the "advocacy" issue, some of the arguments have been a re-run of the 2006 pedophile userbox wheel war. If someone states in project space that they are a pedophile/support legalizing pedophilia, it will result in a block. This has not changed since 2006.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Pierce's suggestion that the issue of self vs. otherwise disclosured is moot. The issue remains the disruption from any disclosure. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Apparently it's a fantasy to come up with alternative rationale when others believe there are binary reasons for actions. This seems to be another example of the past when cynical assumptions led to encroachment of policy that and while I can propose that consensus can change, it isn't worth it since regardless of consensus, this policy is destined to stay. However, I believe we should have a place to express our doubts and make sure that the intentions of the policy are known for those enforcing it years in the future; before it is used as precedent for other policies. If we can't discuss it, why have a talk page? And if the discussion bothers some so much, they can disengage. —Ost (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that, Ian? On the contrary, my interpretation of the 2006 case is rather different: see principles 10 and 11, and also the discussion by the arbitrators on the non-passing alternatives to principle 10. Editors are instructed not to post anything on their user pages that might bring the project into disrepute. That's not at all the same thing as saying those editors will be blocked indefinitely on sight, and doesn't come close to touching upon the question of advocacy on non-user pages, e.g. bona-fide criticisms on talk pages about the POV of pedophilia-related articles. Moreover the intent of principle 10 was clearly to say that Wikipedia editors who happen to be pedophiles but don't disrupt the project are welcome to edit here. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what anyone wants it to say, or thinks it should say. It sez 'you sez you paedophile, you advocate paedophilia anywhere on Wikipedia, you outta here'Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In the 2006 case? Citation please. I read over the case page and honestly didn't see anything that comes close to what you quoted. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Things have moved on since the 2006 drama. Jimbo has stated that Wikipedia:Child protection is policy, but we are still arguing about whether "self-identifying" is in itself disruptive. We seem to be going round in circles on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We are? I think the point is that any disclosure is simply disruptive and should never happen. Those who would like to be open can contact Arbcom. My point is that the page currently doesn't spell out that disruption is the issue of disclosure and not that someone simply is or was a pedofiliac is the issue. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo for a clarification of the issues that have been raised in this section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)