Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 2

Policy?
This could probably be marked as policy, as it appears to be such in a de facto sense. However, doing so requires more discussion, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be marked as "instruction creep" instead? Ever since that infbox wheel war this kind of thing has usually been handled with very little drama as far as I know. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever since an admin slapped "Blocked Paedophile" all over someone's account when they had not engaged in any pedophile activity or promotion on Wikipedia (they had in other places on the internet, and interestingly they are still editing some wikis in the foundation), I've had a concern that at some point an admin from deepest Innocence is going to do the same to a member of Pornish Pixies, the Livejournal Potter/Snape chan site at the centre of the strikeout debacle a few years ago. A policy that says "don't plaster CHILD MOLESTER all over the userpage, email arbcom if you have concerns and use use a neutral reason if you are the blocking admin" is essential in my view. It doesn't have to say anything else. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh lucky me, I managed to miss that block slapping episode. Well, be sensible, have fun, and don't put too many beans up your nose. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the status of the page back to essay. This page is too young, has had too few editors involved, and too little discussion to be called anything else at this stage. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. Furthermore, the essay is called "WP:Pedophilia" not "WP:Pedophile blocking policy" nor even "WP:how self-identified Pedophiles are dealt with".  Potentially, this essay could contain advice about many different aspects of how WP deals with both Pedophilic activity and accusations thereof, including the upload of images, libellous allegations, objectionable text, grooming etc etc.  That wasn't the intention when it started but the "instruction creep" point made by the IP is, perhaps, worth bearing in mind in that context  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The essay started as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pedophilia advocacy on Lolicon --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to proposed policy, which I hope is ok. I think claiming this is instruction creep is unhelpful - creating a bar against an important thing like that because it has too many instructions will mean nothing ever gets moved on. Most of the stuff on here is really going to be common sense and codifying what already happens.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming it is instruction creep (though the IP is). I'm pointing out that we need to be clear from the outset what we intend this page to do before the instructions do start to creep in.  The title might not the be most useful, for a start  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the IP's remark. I think the purpose would be to document what our policy is when it comes to dealing with editors who are self-identified as a pedophile. As it is, they are blocked and questions are directed to arbcom. This is already explained on the page, but it needs to go into more detail, such as why the need for such a policy exists (child grooming, example). The page should be retitled to Pedophile policy. Or something similar.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a much better title, agreed --Jubilee♫ clipman 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It's only a better title if you intend on making this a policy. Otherwise, it seems off-the-mark. I'm not sure where this should be an infopage, essay, or something else entirely. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Martin's marking it as an essay was the best approach. However, given that it is only a working draft of something that may or may not end up being proposed as policy, I changed it to draft proposal as the best compromise I could think of  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this couldn't be part of Banning policy? I generally dislike the idea of creating new policies for very specific (and luckily, rare) situations, so if we have to write this down, it should be in an already existing policy. Although I don't really see the need for this in the first place. It's de facto policy already, and it will be regardless of what we (those that are non WMF-staff and non-arbcom members) say or do. --Conti|✉ 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this proposed policy as written is overbroad; it covers at least a few different classes of people:
 * Pedophiles who experience attraction to underage minors, but do not ever act on those attractions;
 * Pedophilia activists who advocate political action such as legal reform outside of the context of the project;
 * Users who directly use Wikipedia as a tool to either promote pedophilia activism or to pursue sexual relationships with minors.
 * The third class should be considered for a block (either for WP:SOAPBOX or in order to protect users who are minors). The other two classes, in my opinion, should by all means be permitted to edit, as long as they do so responsibly. After all, we have many users who are convicted felons editing from prison - it's silly to block somebody because of their off-wiki opinions or desires. Dcoetzee 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently though, if my understanding is correct, the first two classes aren't allowed to edit. Anyone who does self-identify as a pedophile, even if they haven't acted on their attractions, is slapped with an indefinite block. Buddy431 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been a de facto practice ever since the days of the old userbox wars. I think this aggressive pre-emptive blocking practice is a form of moral panic that is inconsistent with our general policies and I oppose it in the strongest terms. Dcoetzee 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment of the situation, and also oppose the practice on those grounds. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:29, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * What Dcoetzee said was exactly what I thought when I read this page, and agree that the final one can be dealt with just as anybody attempting to use WP for relationships or activism. I don't see why a very specific policy is need in this situation Verbally  Insane  16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just no. Pedophilia issues are uncommon enough on wikipedia that they can be delt with quietly by admins under IAR. Trying to bring policy into the area simply allows for rulelawyering by all sides and needless drama.©Geni 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be (on this page, at a minimum) disagreement about what actions "improve the encyclopedia." If there is a policy of banning pedophiles, writing it down has merit. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Such dissputes are legitimate and attempting to end them through codification is likely to present further problems down the line. Given the emotiveness of the topic any policy is always going to be a massive drama magnet which will complicate the actual actions needed to deal with the issue.©Geni 02:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as a thought experiment, one could consider how much drama has been created in the absence of such a written declaration. If you look at the 2006 userbox wheel war and its direct and indirect consequences, you might see an incredibly nasty ripple effect that could have been avoided. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right after the wheel war ended, we got the de facto policy that we are still operating under today. The current document changes exactly what? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others here, but I think having a page laying out this de-facto policy is important. I don't really care if the page is labeled a policy, or just left as an information type thing.  But I think it's terribly unfair to block people immediately and indefinitely for something that they don't even know isn't tolerated here.  For example, I hold certain views that, if expressed here, might get me labeled as being a "pedophilia advocate", even though I have no love for pedophiles, and am certainly not one myself.  I regard these views as quite unthreatening, and would be flabbergasted to be blocked for expressing them if I had never heard of this !policy.


 * This !policy is definitely the exception to our usual practices here: in most instances, we are willing to tolerate politically incorrect and socialy deviant behavior, as long as it doesn't interfere with the project. Therefore, I think it is only fair that if we're going to block people for being a pedophile or pedophilia advocate, whatever those words mean, we should give our editors fair warning first. Buddy431 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're trying to prevent serious crimes here, why would we want to warn perpetrators to conceal their activities? And if you did get blocked, the block message would say to contact arbcom by email.  You could presumably discuss an unblock with them that way. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the world is more complicated than that.
 * To give a parallel situation: I saw a badly written employee handbook for a very large, multinational corporation about ten years ago.  On the second page, it named "immoral activities" as a reason for firing.  The staff nearly panicked:  They thought "If HR finds out that my girlfriend stays the night, I'll get fired".  The HR department actually meant, "If you're involved in a truly huge public scandal, then we're not waiting for the end of the criminal trial:  you'll be fired when it hits the front page of the newspaper."
 * Leaving editors confused about what we mean provides no advantage to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Past actions
So I'm going to start a list of past invocations of this de-facto policy, so we can see how it's been implemented.
 * The recent thread at ANI: Ani
 * Now archived here: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This old (2006) Request for Arbitration case dealing with a "This user is a pedophile" userbox that user:Silver seren was kind enough to dig up. The case deals more with the wheel war that erupted, rather than the case itself:  Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war.  Evidently, Jimbo stepped in and took some action, but it seemed to be more to stop the wheel war, rather than make a statement on how pedophiles should be treated here.
 * Interestingly, the Arbcom decision does include a statement that "Wikipedia is open to all... unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project" (Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war). I'm not sure if that was supposed to apply to potential pedophilic editors, or what. Buddy431 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has any other instances of this !Policy being implemented, please post them. Buddy431 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's going to be almost impossible to dig up much more given that the issue is usually dealt with via email rather than on-site. We really need input from WMF, ArbCom, and Jimbo on this IMO --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my notes, as of September 2006, there were twelve self-identified pedophiles on Wikipedia. Nine of them have been blocked; of the three who haven't, none of them has been active in the past six months (and none of them still identify as pedophiles on their userpages). --Carnildo (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone find a link to the Template for Deletion discussion that was apparently made for the pedophilia template discussed in the Userbox Wheel War Arbcom decision? Silver  seren C 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick search of the archives gives this: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5. There seem to be other TfD's as well but I guess this one is it  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh...the discussion is exactly as I thought it would be. Almost all of the Delete votes have no actual rationale beyond that they think it's gross and immoral. The Keep votes actually quoted policy and explained themselves. And then there were the multiple admins who just deleted it (and said they did so in the discussion) with no regard for the discussion at all or even policy. That's how the wheel war started...and it seems the Delete voters started it. Silver  seren C 01:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's where user:VigilancePrime was blocked in 2008 for having a userbox that said "this user loves girls as opposed to boys, where girl linked to "young woman" and boy linked to "young man". Pedophile_topic_mentorship/Archive_1. That actually seems pretty ridiculous to me. Buddy431 (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tyciol was blocked for entirely off-wiki activities. He's still an editor on some of the Foundation wikis, curiously.  Bit of an inconsistency here, also (amusing in retrospect) the blocking editor slapped 'blocked for being a paedophile' all over the account, while not wishing to point to the evidence in case it outed the guy. Although this chap was self-declared elsewhere on the internet, and so correctly blocked on en-wiki, the possibility of being wrong does exist, hence  my concern above that we have a policy that if someone is suspected of being a paedophile, one should not write CHILD MOLESTER all over the account.  Just in case .... Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see below, KnightLago speaking on behalf of ArbCom (as is my understanding) seems to have taken that into consideration: "In all cases, administrators should use a neutral block summary..."  Equazcion  ( talk ) 13:10, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Here looks like a big discussion over this in 2006 at ANI (and maybe the start of the wheel war???): Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive29. Buddy431 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Extent of "pedophilia is instantly blockable"
(copied from ANI discussion) So, how exactly does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit under this unspoken rule? Are those automatic blockable offenses as well, if someone self-describes themselves as one? Or, heaven forbid (sarcasm), creates a template userbox for it? Silver seren C 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the term "pedophilia" is intended to cover all sexual attraction to minors of what ever age and is so used even by professionals, AFAIK. The precise distinctions you are making are not relevent, IMO  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So...An 18 year old has a 16 year old boy/girl friend. They are not allowed to put this on their userpage on Wikipedia, because then they'd be a pedophile and auto-blocked? Silver  seren C 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, different countries have different ages where kids can have sex. Canada used to have it at 14 a few years ago (its 16 now). How do you determine which ages count as pedophile status? Silver  seren C 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's why there should be no policy about this. At least none that makes a definitive statement. I'm pretty sure Arbcom would never act in such a case, and no other admin would, either. --Conti|✉ 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know the exact cut-off age, per se, that the Foundation uses to look at these cases. Most likely, there isn't one and it is treated on a case-by-case basis.  The 18yo and 16yo are probably safe, IMO a 42yo man who declares he is sexually attracted to 12yo girls probably is not safe  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think people are able to use common sense and best judgement. No one is going to care about the 16-year-old girlfriend of the 18-year-old scenario, but the 40-year-old who states they are sexually attracted to children on their userpage would obviously be concerning.  Aiken   &#9835;   21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the line is blurred doesn't mean we can't have a policy on it, IMO. There are many policies that specifically state their own discretionary nature and the use of common sense. It'll be difficult to draft a policy without knowing the logic behind it though. Though I have seen that it is our policy to block admitted pedophiles, I'm not sure why that is exactly. Though in this case I suppose the taboo nature of the subject means that people generally won't question it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:42, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then, I must ask, does anyone know User:Paroxysm's actual age and to what specifically he was referencing when he made the "This user identifies as a pedophile" userbox? Silver seren C 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I must say that I find the instant blocking kind of strange, since it has no reference to the user's contributions to the project. I mean, does this policy mean that if one of our most prolific users who has done a significant amount for the project suddenly said that they think they may be able to be classified as a pedophile, just because they have an attraction for, say 15 year olds, or something like that, would get blocked? Because I do not see admitting an attraction the same as actively following that attraction. I think the law agrees with me there too. Silver  seren C 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The as-yet-unwritten rule is based on protecting Wikipedia's reputation. Certain press publications are always looking for mud to fling, and would, (and have, I think) twisted the appearance or discussion of pedophiles on Wikipedia that didn't involve an immediate block into a statement that Wikipedia condones pedophilia. It makes things simpler for the foundation to block these people immediately rather than try to respond to those allegations when they arise. This is the sole reason we have this practice. I don't agree with it, but I do think that if this is what we do across the board, it should be solidified in a policy. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:51, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors with thousands of edits have been blocked by Arbcom before because someone found out that they made pro-pedophilia comments somewhere on the internet, if I recall correctly. I can't find the WP:ANI discussion right now, thanks to our sucky internal search engine. --Conti|✉ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Somewhere on the internet"? So it wasn't even on Wikipedia? O_o Silver  seren C 22:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. --Conti|✉ 22:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This list may interest you. It's the top 1,000 indefinitely blocked editors by edit count. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's open nature, it means anyone can edit, and this includes children. We have nothing at all to protect them from online predators. The issue with pedophiles editing is that it's like allowing them to come into a kindergarten. They are unsupervised, and in addition to on the wiki, they could use the email system. I'm not saying this is the case for every pedophile - but is it worth the risk? Child grooming over the internet happens, and all too easily. Do we really want to harbor an environment that enables that?

Of course, I expect most will probably keep the fact they are attracted to children to themselves, so it's not as if this policy solves everything, but it's a start.

I hope that explains why, once discovered, a pedophile should be blocked indef.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have several problems with that argument. Many places on the internet are "unsupervised" and frequented by children; and I don't have the stats to prove it but I think Wikipedia is on the low end of the spectrum. Also, any communication done between Wikipedians is recorded publicly, or at least privately if done via "email this user". This makes Wikipedia one of the less likely places for grooming to occur.


 * Most importantly, IMO, stating a desire doesn't make someone a criminal. A person can have murder fantasies but we shouldn't block them "just in case" they're actually trying to do it. I personally don't think anyone should be penalized as a matter of policy just for stating what's going on in their heads, no matter how disturbing others might find it. Intentions and actions are all we should be concerned with.


 * The difference here (from something like murder fantasies), and the reason we have the practice, is basically only due to its taboo nature -- and the resulting number of people willing to say "we don't need a coherent reason in this case. it's just wrong, period." Consensus can (perhaps unfortunately) be based on such grounds though, if there's a large enough majority at work. Jimbo's agreement with this reasoning probably also has a lot to do with ArbCom's stance. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:44, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points are completely mooted by the fact that editors are blocked indef for declaring pedophilic tendancies—whether that declaration is made here or elsewhere. We are not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of these decisions but whether this fact should be recorded in a policy document  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already stated above that if this is to be the practice I agree it should be stated in a policy, though that doesn't mean the premise can't be re-examined. I appear to not be the only one who feels this practice warrants further discussion, and this seems an appropriate place for that to occur. It's not a moot point as long as there are people who want to discuss it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:05, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Meta might be a more appropriate place than enwiki to discuss it. Off-wiki (mailing list, or private) might be an even better place.  It's not clear that we have any influence over it no matter what. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason this discussion belongs off-wiki. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:22, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. We have no say in the matter: it's a decision made by the Foundation/Jimbo/ArbCom.  Email them if you think it needs further investigation.  FWIW, I also feel it needs to be re-examined for many of the reasons presented on this page, not least by you  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we have a say is yet to be determined. ArbCom is undoubtedly influenced by Wikipedians' opinions; they're not dictators. As long as there are people who feel like discussing it here, I see no reason not to. Open discussion is usually not a bad thing, even if it only ends up being academic. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:36, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, actually: we can't make a local policy on ENWP about this because it is out of our hands. WP is neither dictactorship nor a democracy, of course, so our opinions do matter but we can't really "vote".  I still haven't quite made my point clear, perhaps, but I think you get what I mean?  Anyway, ArbCom are discussing it : see below  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it's in arbcom jurisdiction, since I don't know that it's an enwiki policy that we're talking about. But it's good that they're following this.  They can communicate with other relevant parties (e.g. WMF) as they see fit. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will we be informed (or have a link posted on this page somewhere) about their decision on the matter? Silver  seren C 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's their call, I guess --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our very openness is what protects children: everything that happens on Wikipedia is publicly visible. You mention allowing a pedophile to enter a kindergarten: that's a very apt comparison.  Do you seriously think a peodophile will engage in grooming under the watchful eye of the teacher? --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, actually --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument is that teachers are professionals, with a duty of care for the classroom, etc., and as a result of that you can be sure that teachers are more attentive when they have unknown people mingling with the children.
 * Who has the same duty of care over English Wikipedia? Best efforts aside, Wikipedia pages and editors are not watched so vigilantly.  We can't stop pedophiles from having Wikipedia accounts; even if we allowed openly-disclosed pedophile accounts "so that we can watch them", they can still have alternative accounts.
 * All we can do is make our intentions clear that we consider it inappropriate for pedophiles to edit Wikipedia "openly", which allows them to congregate, use it as part of advocacy and/or as part of their individual or collective remedy. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, known/self-disclosed pedophiles are increasingly being placed on registers (see Megan's Law and Violent and Sex Offender Register), and once a teacher is aware someone is a pedophile, I expect that teachers would be looking to avoid situations where they need to watch them. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just plain inconvincing (use your imagination a little). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess there is the "email user" button... and there are many obscure areas in ENWP that few people watch so I guess the danger is a lot more real than we might be imagining it to be  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, I suppose you would have to consider the fact that "Jimbo is the ultimate authority", as stated by Arbcom. So, no matter how tight consensus may be one way or another, if Jimbo disagrees, then there's no arguing against him, period. Silver  seren C 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really so true anymore, is it? A lot's changed in the last 4 years here, and it seems like it's a lot more acceptable now to question, and even develop consensus against, Jimbo's wishes.  I'm not really involved in the politics here, so I could be mistaken, but I don't think we should blindly accept whatever Jimbo may have to say on the matter.  In any case, the Arbcom ruling  does make it clear that Mr. Wales pronouncements are still fodder for criticism and discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This "kindergarten" and "teacher" metaphor would have more of an impact on me if we were actually dealing with a kid-centric environment like that. If children were the target demographic and our highest concentration of users, I'd say yes, let's not allow an admitted pedophile, because it's more realistic to assume their reason for being here is not honorable; and even if not, chances are they'd be talking to kids most of the time anyway, whether they seek to or not, since kids make up the general population. This is not the case on Wikipedia though. We're not in a kindergarten. This is just a public place; in fact, a public place where I'm pretty sure kids are much more of a minority than they are in most public places.

Despite there being the odd place on-wiki where some communication might possibly go unnoticed, the fact remains that it's still all recorded permanently for public viewing; so while it's possible, just like on any other site, this is still the least likely place for it to occur. Predators would seek out private and unrecorded means, not the opposite.

It's also almost a nil possibility that these admitted pedophiles we're blocking could get away with doing anything untoward, since they'd be watched especially closely if allowed to edit. The ones who aren't admitting it are the only ones we should be more worried about. In a way, blocking admitted pedophiles encourages pedophiles to keep it to themselves, and increases the danger to the on-wiki environment. Equazcion ( talk ) 11:21, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I largely agree with Equazcion. I'm not comfortable blocking people because they are brave enough to state that they hold socially unacceptable beliefs.  And I also agree that Wikipedia isn't the ideal place to be picking up kids.  We still must consider the possible negative press associated with being seen as soft on pedophiles.  Like it or not, many people would be outraged if they think we're tolerating pedophilia.  It's not going to do much good to reasonably explain that we tolerate all points of view as long as they don't disrupt the project: most people just aren't capable of having a reasonable conversation about a topic like this.  And, in a worst case scenario, where a pedophile did pick up a kid on Wikipedia and word got out to the press, we would have a sh*tstorm on our hands.  Still, I'm not convinced that the possibility of predatory behavior or negative press is enough to justify preemptively blocking a class of editors who haven't necessarily done anything wrong. Buddy431 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still, it appears that this policy is going to remain, so I think we should at least try to keep it as narrow as possible, and we should certainly let people know that we have it: there's no reason to hide it behind the curtain of Arbcom. Buddy431 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the Fox News story?
Should anybody do anything about that? I'm in favor of deleting and salting whatever illegal images there might be on Wikimedia. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This might belong at ANI, if anyplace on Wikipedia. I would say Commons would be the more appropriate place to discuss it, but the deletion of these classic works would probably impact Wikipedia articles, so maybe it should be discussed on Wikipedia. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:45, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:48, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of classic mistakes that non-lawyers tend to make when attempting to interpret the law. In his letter to the FBI, Sanger made all of them.  In short, none of the images he's complaining about are illegal. --Carnildo (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom
I suggest notifying arbcom of this page so they can monitor its development and weigh in if they feel they should. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are discussing it. KnightLago (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know, KnightLago --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an Arb
Pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or advocate for pedophilia are blocked indefinitely. This is an established and long held policy of the Arbitration Committee.

As allegations concerning pedophilia are extremely serious, all editors are asked to act with caution in this area. In clear cases, such as the self-identification of a pedophile, administrators are asked to block the user and proceed as directed below. In less clear-cut cases, suspicious users should contact the Arbitration Committee privately via email. The entire Committee will then examine the situation and take the appropriate action.

In all cases, administrators should use a neutral block summary and direct the blocked editor to contact the Arbitration Committee via email. The blocking administrator should also notify the Committee as soon as possible. Because of the sensitivity of this type of allegation, all editors are asked to remain civil, and make no accusatory comments of any kind.

-- KnightLago (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should be asking you then. Where does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit under here or are they completely separate and have nothing to do with this? Silver  seren C 21:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please drop this unproductive interest because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: we do not spell out every bad idea, and we should not waste time with lawyer hair splitting. When an admin is able to literally imprison an editor, then we can engage proper lawyers to fully specify policies so trolls will know exactly what they can get away with. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is just a website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, excuse me? How is it an "unproductive interest" and "bad ideas"? I am asking a legitimate question. It has nothing to do with "lawyer hair-splitting", it has to do with what Arbcom blocks for. I think our editors have a right to know what is a blockable offense. Silver  seren C 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you really want? Should arbcom (or consensus, or whatever) formulate a policy with stuff like if a person over the age of 25 declares they have a sexual interest with someone under the age of 15, that person is banned; if the person is between 20 and 25, they are given one warning; if the person is under 20, they are discouraged but not prohibited? What if the person actually prefers older people, but declares they like children on Sundays? Should the policy define exactly what a "sexual interest" means (would collecting nude photos on your user page, because they are very artistic, be a problem)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is not helpful. I am asking these questions so that a policy can be accurately formulated. As I have stated on this talk page to others, it would be helpful to all to know what criterion Arbcom is making this decision. As the age of consent varies worldwide, so does that complicate things. Is this policy based on a US interpretation? Does that mean that the other language Wikipedias go by their specific affiliated countries in terms of this policy? The first two examples you have are not illegal. The third if just sarcasm and, thus, useless. The fourth depends on if they are collecting images already hosted on Wikipedia Commons. If they are, then there should be no problem. Of course, this discussion is not about images. All users would benefit from knowing what actions will result in a block. A number of those blocked under this policy were not trolls, but established users. So, this policy should be a proper, understandable explanation of what is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is why I am asking this question. Silver  seren C 02:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to toss it out there, any such actions or policy will likely be formed based on a U.S. interpretation, since that's where the Foundation and the servers are located. In that case, hebephilia would not be acceptable, though as I stated before, ephebophilia is harder to state. Most likely, the best way to word this is something to the effect of "persons who are of legal age that express sexual interest in persons under the age of eighteen will be blocked until the Arbcom can consider the situation and make a final determination." Under eighteen being considered a minor. Of course, the situation is somewhat more complex than this, but as you've shown, using the term "paedophile" is problematic since it technically only covers the prepubescent age group. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think Arbcom should actually state that, because, once again, we're just interpreting stuff that hasn't actually been said. There's other extenuating circumstances as well, like the fact that you can marry at 15 in Kansas, and marriage negates any sexual age laws, so that would be a different situation. Silver  seren C 03:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I agree as well that Arbcom should do that. And like I said, there are additional complexities beyond the wording I give above, but it would be a temporary block until Arbcom can take a look at it and make a determination, during which such extenuating circumstances could be laid out. As KnightLago says, any such block would be neutrally worded, non-condemning, just in case there are abnormal situations such as your example (I still find it appalling, but like you said, it's legal in some places). Really, I think people take for granted that editing here is a privilege, not a right. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, actually. Wikipedia wouldn't be anything without its editors. Yes, you can be blocked. But it's like public places. It's not a privilege that you are allowed in them, it is pretty much a right that you are allowed to be there. If you do something wrong (like parade around naked), then you can be picked up and charged, or something like that. It's the same here. Editing is a right to anyone, as Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Rights can be removed if you do something wrong, but that doesn't make it any less of a right. Editing is not a privilege, it is a right. Silver  seren C 03:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * o.O ?? Er, people are encouraged to edit here, community is welcome, but all things considered, it is still a private website that could be locked down at any time. Will that happen? Almost certainly not since that means the very essence of what makes the site popular would be lost, but the fact remains that just as posting on any given forum is a privilege, so is editing this site. It is a privilege, not a right protected by law. Never mind, this isn't the correct forum. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the current policy as illustrated by KnightLago (who I assume is speaking as a representative of ArbCom, correct me if I'm wrong) is legitimately binding since it was never developed through open discussion and consensus. This matter has, for as far as I can tell, been handled solely by ArbCom and it long past time for the community to have a say in it. Now, when we finally begin to discuss the issue out in the open, is the worst time to suggest that it be taken back underground. Policies, even when developed inappropriately, are always subject to community consensus and rewording. ArbCom never should have full say over the meaning and application of a policy.


 * The role of ArbCom is not to create policy but instead take policy that has already been created by consensus and interpret it as a last resort in dispute resolution. ArbCom has never had the authority to create policy out of thin air without the backing of the community, nor are any of our policies subject to significant change without a due amount of on-wiki discussion. In other words, policy created off-wiki through discussions in secret smoke-filled-rooms is not a legitimate policy and as such can and should be ignored by policy-conscious editors. I think its time for ArbCom to step aside from being the sole source of authority in this matter and let the community take over the reigns.  I have total faith that we will be able to create, in open discussion, a consensus-based model for dealing with this. What is on this page, while I thoroughly disagree with it, is better than nothing and User:Buddy431/pedophilia draft is better still. The best thing for ArbCom to do is to initiate an RfC on this issue. What's needed here is more attention, not less.  Them  From  Space  03:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true. Referring to Arbitration/Policy, this is not already a policy, so Arbcom can have no oversight on it or interpretation. It is not a dispute resolution matter. It has not been referred to them through the Mediation Committee. Arbcom has made no public statement as it is on this matter, so it is not binding. It would be apt to compare Arbcom to the Supreme Court. They interpret laws and create resolutions based on things brought before them. They do not make policy. Without a policy to interpret or a dispute brought before them, Arbcom has no jurisdiction over this matter. An RfC should be opened so consensus can be found and a policy can be made. Once that is done, then Arbcom can have some say in it, in relation to community consensus. Silver  seren C 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Themfromspace, after they ban you, and delete the discussion leading to your ban, you'll see how policy in this area is actually enforced on wikipedia&mdash;hypothetically speaking, of course. It is irrelevant whether you approve of it or not. The goal of this page should be to document the practice. Unless you intend to instigate an insurrection against the current ArbCom, this discussion serves no purpose. There's policy that says Arbcom can WP:BAN anyone they wish. This discretionary power gets applied in very limited circumstances, pedophilia (advocacy) being one of them. Case dismissed. Pcap ping  13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly would they ban him for, voicing his opinion? So this is a dictatorship then? Silver  seren C 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a website, not a dictatorship. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is not to test the "limits of anarchism", this is to find community consensus on a proposed policy. Like we've said, a policy that has not been created cannot yet be arbitrated by Arbcom until it is created. Arbcom does not create policy, it modifies and rules on existing policy. We need to find out what community consensus is on this subject first before Arbcom can have any jurisdiction over it. Silver  seren C 01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation
There's more than a handful of references to "WMF" on this page currently. Does anyone know of any previous discussions involving Wikimedia Foundation employees and this subject? Or any actions from Wikimedia Foundation employees related to this subject? Ever?

I'm aware of neither (and I do try to keep myself informed), so the repeated references strike me as very odd. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a fair question and I have no idea of the answer. I think we are mixing up the various bodies in the above discussion, perhaps due to lack of clear understanding of the exact jurisdictions of each body.  (That's certainly true in my case: I'm still getting to grips with editing let alone the precise structure of the project)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually IIRC the WMF officially has nothing to do with wikipedia editing policy (so my earlier post was wrong as stated). In practice I wouldn't be surprised if there's private communication between arbcom and the WMF on some issues like this.  The Foundation structure is described at foundation and elsewhere.  The essay power structure used to make more sense than it does now.  It's not really worth caring about this stuff for most of us.  69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. And I concur that there is bound to be private communication between ArbCom and WMF on matters such as this.  Concur with the last sentence also, mind...   --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sketch out a policy
Arbcom will make a decision ruling over this, though we can be quite sure that it'll be in the vein of instant blocking, as has been standard for years. While I may agree or disagree with that decision, I feel that we should still have a policy on the matter. The Arbcom decision will affect it, but we should still work out this essay, so that it can at least be looked at by Arbcom and considered. In that manner, it may become a policy. It might actually be likely to do so.

So, we should work out how this essay/possible policy be worded, going under the assumption that Arbcom will go with instant blocking. Any changes in the Arbcom decision that differs from this can be instituted upon that happening, but I do believe it unreasonable to make an assumption that the standard will not change.

As for what i've said above, in terms of hebephilia and ephebophilia, i'm going to wait until the Arbcom decision to see about describing boundaries. But, ignore that for now.

How should this essay be fleshed out? Any ideas? Silver seren C 07:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would it help Wikipedia if we spend a week designing detailed procedures that declare what behavior is and is not acceptable? Per WP:BEANS we do not try to document every bad idea, and there would be no point in trying to identify the boundary between being merely creepy and being banned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said we should identify a boundary. I said I was going to try and do that after the Arbcom decision. I said, for now, we should work on the assumption that Arbcom will state that identifying as a pedophile is inherently blockable, so we should expand the essay based on that. The essay as it is now isn't very descriptive. It states the position, but, for example, it should also explain that userboxes are not to be used as an identifying effect. This should be a point, as a userbox was a major reason for this Arbcom stance to be known as it is. Silver  seren C 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What Johnuniq said. I recognize that there are some sensible people participating on this page who think it's a good idea, but I've personally felt creeped out by it from the start. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...what? I have no idea what that comment has to do with what I said. Silver  seren C 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you Johnuniq? I was agreeing with what Johnuniq said. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except he misunderstood what I meant. By agreeing with him, that means you misunderstood as well. Silver  seren C 08:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Johnuniq and I both understood what you meant.  Maybe you didn't understand what we meant.  69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... O_o...I think i understand what I mean more than you understand what I mean...considering i'm the one that said it. Silver  seren C 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You expressed interest in designing a policy and codifying the distinctions between various related forms of icky behavior. You asked for other people's thoughts about how to do that.  Johnuniq and I responded to your request by expressing the view that we don't need more policy development in this area and that the distinctions don't need codification.  Wikipedia is not a blog and really, we don't need to hear about editors' sexual preferences no matter what they are. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Codifying the distinctions? I never said that. I said we should expand what we have on pedophilia related actions and support being a blockable offense. Silver  seren C 10:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to quibble with my paraphrase, I don't care. The conclusion it the same. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't see why we need an essay/policy in the first place. And, again, if we need one, why can't it be part of the banning policy? --Conti|✉ 08:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this subject would need more explanation than would be advisable to fit onto the blocking policy page (ban is formal revocation and not forceful revocation, so it's block, not ban). Now, don't get me wrong, there can totally be a section on there that then links to this essay as the main subject. That works fine. But I think this subject needs to be a big more expansive and needs more of an explanation than just putting a paragraph on the Blocking policy page. THe other problem would be...where would you put it on the page? I mean, I suppose it goes with Protection: actions that place users in danger. Except...this isn't about an action. It's preventative, you would say, to stop possible actions from occurring. *sighs* This is so complicated, since it goes against so many of Wikipedia's policies, as these users have not actually done anything. :/ They haven't, presumably, made any disruptive edits on wikipedia or taken any actions that are legally offensive. Silver  seren C 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if it is so hard to come up with something sensible here, why do it in the first place? :) Arbcom will continue doing what they think is best, regardless of what this page says, and trying to create an essay that goes into detail on when to block and when not to block and why and so on will just create needless drama, I would imagine. Anyhow, I don't see what else we would need to put here besides "Arbcom reserves the right to ban users associated with pro-pedophilia activism." or something like that. --Conti|✉
 * But then how are people supposed to know what that means? "Pro-pedophilia activism" is ridiculously vague. Silver  seren C 10:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the point, I think. It means "If Arbcom thinks you're guilty of it, you're banned." In a way, it's a bit like democracy: It's the worst possible system. Except for all others. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FloNight wrote at ANI about the block that started all this: "For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list." That sounds to me like the proper place to seek information is from arbcom by email, rather than from on-wiki essays by people who don't know anything about what's going on anyway. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is admittedly conjecture but I have a feeling the people writing essays know about as much as ArbCom does. If ArbCom had a coherent reason for this practice they would've stated it openly already. The fact that they're forcing this off-wiki tells me that they don't think their rationale (or whatever they're trying to pass off as rationale) would stand up to a public debate. When your argument is shaky it's a lot easier to assuage one person's concerns than it is to make public statements. Equazcion  ( talk ) 12:06, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, why are you saying that they're forcing this off wiki? I don't see anything about it.  Am I missing something here? Buddy431 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The SOP is to report concerns to email arbcom privately, which avoids nasty discussions about specific users who may be identifiable in the real world (we may not know their name, but their friends may know their WP username), and avoid things being said publicly that are best not said publicly.
 * In spite of that, there have been very long discussions onwiki at times. I wouldn't be surprised in Arbcom members have requested that the discussion be moved off-wiki, so that could be what Equazcion means by forced...?  In the case I remember from 2009, if there were forceful "requests", they didn't have the desired effect as the discussion on-wiki went on for quite a while. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In my eyes, we need something saying what we do. There's no good reason to be all cloak and dagger about this.  The people on this page sort of know what the policy is, and there's no reason that other editors who don't pay as much attention to ANI shouldn't as well. In fact, I think Wikipedia could use a lot more internal information and documentation.  People who've been here a while know what's going on, while those new here don't.  It creates a group of editors who are more knowledgeable than the usual riff-raff, and thus tend to see themselves as better than the average editor.  We aren't talking about nuclear bomb plans here: there's no good reason that the editors out there shouldn't know what's being discussed in here . Buddy431 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's certainly been a lot of activity here since I was last on! Regarding "fleshing out" the page, I can't really see how we can say much more: we haven't an iota of a clue what criteria ArbCom (or whomever) have in front of them when banning/blocking editors for declaring pedophilic tendencies (nor how they define that word).  We have to take it for granted that they use common sense and enforce the de facto policy in the most sensible and least obtrusive manner possible.  Thus, all we can say is "an editor is blocked and banned from WP if they self-identify as a pedophile or advocate pedophilia" and explain who is responsible for enforcing the ban/block and how to contact them.  Perhaps something about avoiding vigilantism but no more: "Do not engage with them and, if you are a sysop, do not block them yourself (unless there are other Policy reasons to do so); report all allegations and incidents to ArbCom."  I.e. what we have but with the language tightened up a little  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

on forcing off-wiki
In response to Budd431 above: Whenever someone is blocked for being a pedophile and people ask why, the blocker says to email arbcom. This is generally User:FloNight we're talking about, who has taken it upon him or herself to interpret ArbCom's wishes regarding admitted pedophiles. This whole de facto rule was dreamed up by him or her, as far as I'm aware, and there hasn't actually been any ArbCom ruling that admitted pedophiles are to be blocked. It's just the interpretation of a select few (perhaps more accurately, a couple of) sysops, who have simply been more stalwart than their opposition. FloNight has been directing people to ArbCom and has been completely unwilling to discuss his or her reasoning on-wiki, which makes them difficult to argue with.

This works out because s/he isn't entirely bluffing. If one were to email ArbCom, I'm sure they wouldn't say they had a problem with blocking admitted pedophiles exactly; but, at the same time, it isn't something they've actually ruled should happen. Again, in my view, some sysops are using the pedophile userbox debacle, and the general feeling on pedophilia, as an excuse to panic morally and take this overboard. Since moral panic is a stronger force than those who would argue against it (since opponents of moral panic aren't panicking themselves, but presenting a calmer argument), it's easy to steamroll over them. Which is what's happening now. Equazcion ( talk ) 16:22, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify some things here - FloNight is a former Arbcom member, was apparently in Arbcom when the informal policy was developed, and is a she. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought they were forcing this page off wiki (not just taking the blocking off wiki), which was the source of my confusion.  I'm not really knowledgeable about the politics here (and it's hard to be when everyone's so damn secretive), so I appreciate your take on the matter. Buddy432 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "FloNight has been directing people to ArbCom and has been completely unwilling to discuss his or her reasoning on-wiki, which makes them difficult to argue with."—you mean difficult to argue with on-wiki. I get caught up in the wikipedia universe too, but at the end of the day, other forms of communication also exist.  FloNight has stated that if you have questions about the block, you can email arbcom.  Have you done that?   If not, why are you here?  Are you just addicted to drama?  I know it's addictive and I find it hard to resist being drawn into it myself when it happens, but I don't go around trying to create more. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't emailed ArbCom because, as I just said, I can predict their response; and more importantly, there's nothing I can do in an email but state my opinion and probably be shot down without forcing ArbCom into making any actual public statement. I'm continuing to take this up here because while it's easy to ignore or quell a private communicator, a public discussion showing discontent with a practice is harder to ignore. This is why most of Wikipedia's policy discussions occur in public and on-wiki, rather than in the "back room"; and subsequently why I don't believe in email and IRC as a means of communicating about most Wikipedia matters. Things are nice and unhidden here, and more difficult to ignore. If people share my feelings on this subject, I want everyone to be able to see that so there's a chance for change. A private email accomplishes none of this.  Equazcion  ( talk ) 18:21, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are here based on a completely untested assumption of what arbcom would say if you followed their advice and emailed them. Great. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. Don't want to muddy this page up any further with irrelevant bickering. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:08, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a real problem of taking only what you want to hear out of what someone says and then ignoring the rest of what they say. Equazcion perfectly explained why he doesn't want to email Arbcom, it's because it would all be in the back room and they could brush him off that much easier, which makes it a waste of time to do. Instead, discussing it here on-wiki makes it public and everyone's viewpoints are shown in a way that everyone can see. We want out opinions to be seen, not hidden away on a private email that no one but the recipient will ever see. Silver  seren C 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with what has been stated above. There has never been any actual Arbcom response in regards to this matter and any action that admins take in regard to it is based on their own interpretation of things that Arbcom has not actually stated. You can assume on implied things all day long, but that's not worth squat. Silver  seren C 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I agree with the statement that blocking admitted pedophiles is counter-productive to the project. If they have admitted their own feelings, then that means that we can both watch them closely and that also means, having admitted it, that they are that much less likely to actually be the type to do anything. Just as in society, where convicted pedophiles are tracked and their locations and activities recorded. It makes complete sense to me to have these people be required to admit their status wherever they go online as well. It makes things safer. Admittedly, this is assuming they're convicted, when it is much more likely that those that admit it here on Wikipedia haven't actually done anything. In that manner, blocking them would cause others to not admit their status and thus make it more likely (though still incredibly unlikely) that one of these pedophilic users will get involved with a child here on the site.


 * So we are at a sort of impasse on what we want here and which is more important. Is Wikipedia's reputation that we assume will be tarnished from something like this more important than protecting the minority of users who are children? Because that is our choice. If we act on an instant block viewpoint, then that forces other pedophiles underground here on Wikipedia, increasing the likelihood of an incident occurring. If, instead, we just watch the admitted users carefully and perhaps refer them to some therapy or counseling, then we open up the possibility of getting some bad press. Which is more important to Wikipedia, it's reputation or its children users? Silver  seren C 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A minor correction: until recently, it was User:Fred Bauder who did the whole "block, shut down discussion, email ArbCom" thing. --Carnildo (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify - any administrator who sees the behaviors we've identified can (and often have) taken the block and notify Arbcom path. There seems to be an unofficial functionary role that someone has, to identify already publicized cases that should fall under this and apply the previously unwritten policy to it.  Previously this seemed to be Fred, and now seems to be FloNight.
 * But it's not just them doing it across Enwiki. They're the ones who actively respond when icidents already became widely public, rather than before it did.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Discriminatory policy
I see this as highly discriminatory and I would never support such a prejudicial run-around of "anyone can edit" with preemptive blocks of any user, whether they are pedophiles, serial-killers, prisoners, etc. unless they have proven that they can not abide by our content or civility policies. Being a Wikipedian is all about leaving our backgrounds at the door and being judged by the quality of our edits, not by who we are offline. We should not block a constructive contributor for any personal reason, which this page would allow.

I also note that the Wikimedia Foundation has a Non-discrimination policy that reads in full ''The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.'' I don't think there's any language here that would permit such a page as at the local level without consensus at the meta leval and a rewriting of this non-discrimination policy.  Them From  Space  00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not the only person who holds an absolutist view along those lines. However, User consensus, administrator consensus, Enwiki's Arbcom, the Foundation staff, Board, and Jimmy Wales have all lined up and supported this at one time or another.  There is universally cross-level community consensus supporting preventive blocks.  It is not felt to be discriminatory or in violation of our antidiscrimination policies.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it not violate them? It seems like it actively does so. And, if you know where you can find examples of this consensus, please link it to us. Silver  seren C 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has come up regularly on AN and ANI and sometimes elsewhere since Fred first announced Arbcom's policy / request / whatever it was the first time. No discussion has ended with another consensus, to the best of my knowledge.  Part of the problem on this is that nobody's reliably tracking the various discussions, so I can't just easily point to the history, but it's been consistently communicated and supported by consensuses.
 * I understand that the lack of identified pointers for the history is frustrating and contrary to how we usually do policy discussions here. Even if this page never becomes more official than an essay, we eventually should dig up and centralize links to the prior discussions back over the years, so the "Where were they?" question doesn't arise again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the specific "how does this not violate them" - The nondiscrimination policy does not protect every category of persons from discrimination on Wikimedia Foundation projects. We do not exclude or sanction people for arbitrary reasons, and specifically not for the enumerated classes of people.  The exclusion here is felt to be non-arbitrary, and not among the enumerated classes who are protected as a class.  Some object to the legal and moral value judgement made when Pedophillia is categorized as a class as being unprotected by nondiscrimination or civil rights laws, but there's no precedent to the contrary anywhere, and much support for doing so.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The thing is, without those links, we have no way to look at this except for the fact that it appears to violate many of Wikipedia's central tenets. If consensus is for instant blocking, though this consensus can't apparently be verified, then there has to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be upheld. I guess it would just be a lone exception to all of the policies? And how do rapists fit into this? Convicted sex offenders? Murderers? Other things? Or does this only apply to pedophiles, which seems to only further contribute to what appears to be a discriminatory consensus. Silver  seren C 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Past discussions don't really do it for me since this unwritten practice seems to be a largely unilateral ArbCom (or "former arbcom members") directive. What I'd like to see happen is a new ArbCom case addressing this issue head-on, instead of vaguely piecing together prior informal discussions. This seems especially prudent now that there's a good argument that this practice actually encourages pedophiles to remain secretive about their sexual leanings and perhaps thereby endanger the community more than if we acted otherwise, as a tradeoff to the protection of Wikipedia's reputation in the press. Of course, there's still the chance that ArbCom will choose not to accept the case, again using the "we can't discuss this on-wiki for the sake of our reputation" excuse. It's worth a shot though, especially if we have some respected users and sysops behind it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:19, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but it seems counter-intuitive that it would be discriminatory to disallow paedophiles, yet paedophilia is illegal. Yes, I know it is their behaviour that is illegal, and not their existence, but I have trouble separating the two. Get rid of the lot of them, and if the Foundation and/or Godwin see it as problematic, they will overturn the decision. Yes, I would prefer the community to be inclusive, but such behaviour goes beyond the pale. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But then I ask, as I have above, how does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit into all of this? Silver  seren C 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Action should be the same for hebephilia, though it is somewhat more gray with ephebophilia since that includes people in the legal range. I suppose it depends on exactly what they express, though as used by what I'd guess is a majority of people, paedophilia means an attraction to underage persons in general. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you consider hebephilia to be the same as pedophilia. You say "includes people in the legal range", which I assume you mean is 18, right? That is, however, a US-centric viewpoint. The age of consent across the world differs, generally, from 14 to 18. Hebephilia, since it is discussing puberty-age people, means around 14, so you cannot group that in with other standards. Silver  seren C 01:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, ephebophilia would cause a more interesting problem, since in many jurisdictions it is illegal (to act on it), and in many it's not. This discrepancy exists between states in the US alone. Huntster hasn't really detailed what his argument for this policy is exactly, except to say that he really believes in it, so it's hard to say how he thinks this should be handled. My feeling is that his reaction is based purely on emotional disgust, so how ephebophilia should be handled would depend on how disgusted that makes him as opposed to pedophilia. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:01, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an emotional disgust, and I shouldn't have entered into this discussion with such a mentality. I just find it disturbing that it's tolerated here. Silver seren, yes, I admit it is a U.S. centric POV. It's my feelings alone, so I'll let the rest of you get back to debating this. I'll must say, though, that I'll be very disappointed if all this results in nothing changing. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That amounts roughly to "there are some things that are so disgusting that we don't need to think objectively and practically anymore, and indulging our knee-jerk reaction is justified," IMO. Yes, the behavior, as you say, is beyond the pale. Wikipedia shouldn't be the thought police though, yes even with regard to something that disgusting. Anyone is free to find the mere expression of thoughts disgusting, but allowing that to influence policy is going too far. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:24, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I emphatically disagree. I cannot understand why any other rational person would not feel the same, though I do not mean that as an attack. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify something here - the policy itself can be discussed on-wiki. What the policy takes out of discussion on-wiki is the specific details and appeals related to a specific block made under the policy.
 * That the specific instances need to be handled in private does not mean the policy can only be discussed in private. There seems to be some confusion in statements above.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hunter: Pedophillia is not illegal, at least in much of the world. Having sex with underage persons is illegal, though the age of consent, etc. varies.  But being sexually attracted to someone is not the same thing as having sex with them by a long shot.  If it was, I'd be a serial rapist because of my sexual attraction to scores of women who I'm sure would never consent to have sex with me. Buddy431 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And anyways, we do tolerate the presence of people who actually have done illegal things, so I think the legality of being a pedophile is largely a moot point. Buddy431 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the legalities. I misspoke. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I might as well have my rant as well and be done with it since everyone else has.  I'll be on wikibreak from tomorrow for an indeterminate period (no internet) so what the hey...
 * As I see it, we have no grounds at all for assuming anything about any editor who self-identifies as a paedophile. After all people say all sorts of stupid things in real life and don't mean it.  "Hello, I'm a paedophile", "Hello, I'm a terrorist"... Only difference with the latter is that saying or writing it really does get you locked up in some jurisdictions in the Free World these days.  Pre-emptive strikes and all that...  Usually, though, there are grounds for believing the person really means what they say, in that case.  Given that it is notoriously difficult to gauge a person's true meaning in written communications, somebody slapping a stupid template on their userpage, saying something stupid on a talkpage, or vandalising a page by stupidly replacing the entire content with I AM A PEDO!!! is more than likely just being stupid.  No more, no less.  That said, there are subtexts here: WHY would someone be that stupid; why stupidly claim to be a paedophile; why bother in the first place?  Also, we do have very dusty unloved corners here on WP which hardly anyone watches and we do have the Email this user link (if enabled).  On the one hand, we have people who say they are paedophiles, on the other we have those who do not but still find ways to entice little girls over to quite corners of WP and... well I'll leave that to your imagination... it disturbs mine horribly.  I understand the pre-emptive strike method is intended to ward off paedophiles but I am not convinced it works.  And to those who say "it won't happen very often", I'll reply: once is enough.  How many times do you want it to happen?!  I have absolutely no idea how to pre-empt the scenario I presented, BTW, and I hope some bright spark out there has thought of a way.
 * Regarding those who advocate paedophilia, OTOH, I think there is a strong case that they should be banned on sight: they actually have exposed their beliefs and intentions. There is still the question of interpretation, of course, and I'll leave it to those with the greatest experience to decide what the real meaning behind an editors words are, i.e. ArbCom.  OTOH, those that argue for a change in the law to lower the age of consent or some such are within their rights, IMO: that's how laws are made, obviously.  There are grey areas even here, therefore.
 * There is far more I could say, but I need to get on with RL stuff now (like sleep...) I doubt if my words or those of others here will make a jot of difference, though: the de facto law is what it is and that almost certainly after long drawn out discussion in boardrooms and via email and on the telephone and...  The people at the "top" probably do know best therefore so we should probably leave it at that.  We could do with the de facto becoming de jure though so we can refer to it more readily.  BTW, I am not a paedophile!   Rant over, time for bed:  Boing!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See, I think we must be very careful when we define what "pedophilia advocacy" is. If someone is really going at it, we can just block them under WP:SOAPBOX, and there's no problem.  But if I'm in a reasonable and cool tempered discussion on the talkpage of, I don't know, lolicon, and I make a comment that I oppose efforts to criminalize lolicon, does that make me a pedophilia advocate?  What if I state my belief that the age of consent is too high (in whatever jurisdiction)?  While we don't really like people to state their personal opinions here, we tolerate it to a certain extent on article talk and user pages, and we generally don't throw down blocks for a little chit-chat.
 * tl;dr: I think wp:SOAP is good enough to get rid of people with truly malicious intent in their "advocacy", and more harm than good is going to come from trying to throw blocks at those who keep their comments to a reasonable level. Buddy431 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much already made my arguments further up on this page addressing what Jubileeclipman states, but for the record I just want to say that I disagree with his whole repeated "the people at the top probably know best" thing, and that there's nothing we can do anyway since the decision has already been made. No decision is final, this isn't "law", and it can certainly change. It just takes people with some semblance of spine. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:36, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. As Jimbo said, while Wikipedia may not be a democracy, it is also not a dictatorship nor, for that matter, is it an oligarchy. We all have the right to make our opinions known and to question authority. Silver  seren C 02:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Hence my rant.  I honestly don't think we'll change anything by airing our views, that's all.  I might be wrong of course...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll change anything because I believe that (in the overall community consensus sense) all of the editors, admin community, arbcom, foundation, board, and Jimmy still agree with the policy as-is. We've always had some people who disagreed pretty much along the lines advocated here; this is not news.  There is not universal agreement that un-acted-upon pedophillia is not a protected category; there's not universal agreement that the preventive principle is necessary or appropriate; there's not universal agreement that our concerns over external reputation of the site is something we should base policy on.  There's always been debate on the core topics here.
 * To date, those opposing on the various grounds listed here over the last few days have always been out-consensused by the majority.
 * There's no reason why that could not change, if you convinced people, but I think you have a large uphill battle. If you want to actually change the policy you'd need to move beyond one talk page to notifications at AN and/or Village Pump, much wider discussion and consensus-seeking, etc.
 * I don't recommend that, as I think the consensus will rapidly and loudly object to changing it, but I don't think anyone will stand in your way if you chose to try that. There are some pretty fundamental personal freedom issues in play here.  I have a strong feeling on one side (ban 'em) but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with thinking that's not the best approach.
 * Up to you all. Again, I don't recommend a serious try at changing it, but you can try if you want.
 * If you do chose to try - it would help if you can focus as specifically as possible on what elements of the existing non-policy policy you specifically object to, whether that's the preventively block/ban anyone who is identifiable as advocating whether they did here or not, keeping blocks under the policy without on-wiki description, or making all discussion and appeals of specific blocks off-wiki and private to Arbcom. I think that covers the main areas of objections, if I missed something please feel free to add that.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt an aggressive campaign is the way to go. That's just asking for an influx of emotional responses that shout everyone else down, as has historically occurred. Consensus on this isn't as unquestionable as you assess it to be, IMO. The community of users in favor of it are simply very stalwart and vocal. Those discussions contain many repeated statements by a select group of advocates, while opposers make one comment and leave. They're not hysterical over this as their opponents are, so the vocal side gets the prize.


 * What I'm doing here is continuing to question the motivation behind the non-policy and forcing people to state their arguments for its existence. Since I believe there is no coherent reason, and so far this has proved to be the case for its advocates (unless you count the "no comment, email arbcom if you want an answer" people), this strategy "works", insofar as, as long as they're challenged, no one can really make this a policy as they (sometimes even admit that they) have no good reason to do so. My eventual goal is that ArbCom address this publicly, preferably in an actual case where the principles at work can be examined and will need to be specifically voted on. I'm particularly curious how the vote tally will look on the "Wikipedia's reputation supersedes concerns over children's safety" principle. A scientific look at this issue, setting people's emotional hysteria aside, would reveal that the practice makes no practical sense, IMO. Of course we won't know unless that's allowed to publicly play out, and I pray that it eventually is. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:51, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * (outdenting)
 * I am curious why you say that no coherent reason has been advanced. That's not even vaguely true.
 * The reasons for blocking any identifiable pedophile or activist for it include:
 * Protective principle for young Wikipedians, who have in the past been approached and solicited by pedophile editors; any known proximity being unacceptable under this principle, and the presence of underage Wikipedians being fairly universal and widespread.
 * Wikipedia's reputation among the world at large.
 * Difficulty in determining if any advocates or "non-offending pedophiles" are truly just advocates or non-offenders and not actually offending / abusing people. The track record in that regard is rather poor in general, and Wikipedia's structure and community are not in positions to make accurate assessments of the situation for an individual's claims and mental state and self-control.
 * The reasons for handling the blocks and block appeals quietly and off-wiki include:
 * Inability to hold frank discussions with appellants regarding their views on-wiki without attracting negative attention to them and the discussion which would render the ability to hold a fair discussion mute.
 * Inability to hold those discussions in public without creating a record which might be seen as harassment or libel of a person who might not be committing offenses.
 * Unwillingness of some people blocked under the policy to explain their views in public.
 * You may freely disagree that these reasons are valid, in your opinion. But please do not assert that they have not been publicly stated.  They have been, repeatedly.  They form coherent and reinforcing arguments, and any one of the principles would by themselves independently justify the policy's required behavior if they are in fact true.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re to #1: But, as we have stated, it is far better to have pedophiles say that they are such so they can be watched. Blocking them instantly causes other pedophiles not to show themselves and this means that they can still solicit younger users and the users will have no method of knowing what these people are. Allowing pedophiles to show themselves allows a measure of scrutiny, the same way society does, which can lessen the chances of an incident occurring.
 * Re to #2: Like i've said before, this one is a true issue. However, it means that you have to choose between Wikipedia's reputation and protecting younger users. See what I said to #1.
 * Re to #3: The major problem with this one is determining what "advocacy" is. That's a very vague term. And can you show where this track record is? You keep saying that these things have happened, but give no links to show that they have.
 * I have no comment on the off-wiki blocks, other than what I have already stated. Silver  seren C 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is argued that it's far better to have pedophiles identified so they can be watched, rather than lurking in the shadows unidentified. It's not proven.
 * In practice, it's not clear if the ones who are actual predators would identify themselves; it's also not clear that those who say they aren't are telling the truth (or, alternately put, are able to control themselves to the degree they assert or believe).
 * In practice, even if we could perfectly identify and tag those users, we'd then have to do a number of highly annoying things - have teams of people wikistalking everyone who self identified, plus insert some sort of privacy-busting feature to screen any emails those people tried to send through the site, etc.
 * We'd have to invade their privacy to get personal data from them, to verify their identity with law enforcement and ensure they're not convicted molesters or child pornographers, etc. We currently have no mechanism to do so; we'd have to create one and staff it.
 * Also, if we were watching, are we liable if we miss something and a Wikipedia editing minor is abused by someone we said we were watching to prevent that?
 * It's all nice to say "Oh, we'd just watch them", it's not evidently practical to actually implement such a program successfully, and the collisions with other policy seem hard to disambiguate.
 * The actual reality is not that offending pedophiles are scrutinized constantly in public by people who follow them around; they're really simply banned from places (near children, schools particularly) and activities which could place them in contact with children. We're a place which could place them into contact with children.  The normal societal and legal response in the US is "You can't go there".  That preventive principle is applied to anyone who is known or self-identified as a pedophile even if they have never offended - nobody would remain employed by a school for a day if they self-identified, they would be removed from being a Boy Scouts troop leader immediately, they'd be fired by any employer whose business or activities might put the pedophile into contact with children.
 * Wikipedia's standards here on who we block and kick out are consistent with the rest of society.
 * We can't assert that there aren't unknown and unidentified pedophiles and molesters among the community; there probably are, as there are in any large enough community in real life. But we can define ourselves as a place it's not safe to let them be, and kick them out if we find out that they are.
 * This isn't a theoretical question. It's a real question and a practical question.  And the reality is that theoretical solutions also have to be sufficiently practical to stand as valid responses to the existing policy.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True that it's not clear that the ones who are predators would actually identify themselves, but along the same logic, it's not clear that the ones who do identify themselves are predators. The opposite would more likely be true. It hasn't been suggested that the watching of admitted pedophiles would be done by some appointed rights group. The argument is that it would be de-facto. Admitted pedophiles would garner special attention by default from the general community of concerned users. The mass hysteria in favor of blocking them on-sight shows this adequately enough. As far as being banned from places -- Wikipedia is much more akin to a general public place than it is an elementary school. Yes, offending pedophiles are banned from schools -- places that cater to children and where children are the prime population. They're not banned from walking on a public street where they might happen to cross paths with children. Even if we were to place the safety of children ahead of any other principle, as I've already stated, a policy (written or not) of banning then when they admit it only encourages pedophiles to keep quiet about it. If the goal of this practice is to lessen the number of pedophiles in the community, this would seem to be counterproductive. On the other hand, if the goal of the practice is merely to allow our disgusted community members to not be faced with that which disgusts them, then this practice accomplished the goal nicely. You won't see many pedophiles if you make them keep quiet about it. Instead, they'll just be there.  Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:52, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that anyone who has pedophillic sexual attraction is, short of chemical castration, able to resist ultimately abusing children. The statistics I've seen from psychologists studying the field indicate that it's something above 90%, even among those who find such conduct morally reprehensible and insist they'll never do it.  Recidivism rates are nearly 100%.  This is why the restrictions on jobs and places to live have been getting increasingly tough.
 * Regarding whether banning them actually reduces the number of them here -
 * You are making a hypothetical assertion, that it does not. We don't know that's true.
 * It's possible that it's true. But it's equally possible that they'll avoid areas known to be actively hostile to them.  It's possible that we'll reduce the number by eliminating any known one.  It's possible that doing so loudly and with public tarring and feathering would increase the deterrent effect, but we have chosen not to do so for a number of reasonable reasons including libel/slander concerns and the possibility of mistaken identifications.
 * These are all hypotheticals, and ones for which concrete answers are not clearly known.
 * To a large degree, what the ones we don't know about do is outside our control. We have to acknowledge that and hope that there aren't many out there, deterring to the degree possible and reasonable and detecting where practical.
 * We do, however, have responsibility if we do find or are aware of pedophiles here. It's not a hypothetical then.  It's a "What's this guy done, going to do, likely to do, possibly going to do".
 * In general, it's hard to defend "Well, we left him alone but watched him", when that breaks down and they go rape some kid when we weren't watching closely enough or didn't notice something in time to report to authorities or whatever.
 * The public expectation is, "Why didn't you just kick him out, when you knew they were there".
 * Stating that we'll watch is an assumption of responsibility, liability, authority. If we fail, we're accountable for all that.
 * We're a volunteer organization and can't depend on our volunteers time, their capability, their judgement all the time. Professionals have a hard enough time.  We have a far worse situation.
 * The practicalities of making monitoring work, and the liabilities should it fail, make the proposed solution impractical and dangerous, and ultimately unacceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What you say here (Georgewilliamherbet) is rarely said at all. In fact as far as this page goes and the blocks I've observed and commented on, I've often had to articulate my opponents' arguments for them in order to argue with them, since they were unable or unwilling (aside from perhaps your #1 reason which does actually get stated often -- "there are children here, so it's like letting a pedophile into a kindergarten..." which I've addressed above, and gotten no further response). I've made my arguments against these already above, which you probably saw. When I say that there is no coherent argument, I mean that these reasons generally haven't stood up to challenge, in my experience. You yourself have chosen to remain outside the debate and are now only presenting the original premises of the argument again, which is easy. You haven't responded to the counter-arguments already presented. I understand that this was just a response to my specific comment, but still. If an argument is "coherent", as I put it, it should stand up against challenge. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:32, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * You have made a wide variety of statements up-thread.
 * A large number of them are assertions of opinion masquerading as policy or fact, and in a number of cases your assertions I know to be factually wrong, from cases which were not completely under current Arbcom secrecy.
 * There have been abuse cases here. They did go on without anyone noticing for extended periods.  They did damage our reputation.
 * As I said elsewhere - this is not a hypothetical or a theoretical. It's a real practical problem.
 * It has significant ongoing risk of further grooming activity and actual contact and molestation as the result of failures to detect molesters operating here. This is not "Hey, we're picking on people unfairly for their personal sexual preference", this is "Felonies and lifelong mental trauma have happened and will undoubtedly happen again; how much prevention can we put in place to minimize them.".
 * Regarding us being "like a kindergarten" or not - No, we're not a site full of only children. But the site has a lot of underage editors, more than you are asserting.  Editor population is roughly proportional to active internet user population statistics, which is heavily skewed towards youth being active online.  We're not like a school in that regard, but are at the very least like parts of malls regularly frequented by many minors, or a library.
 * Some legal restrictions on this area include, as one example:
 * Sex offender registrants whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16 are prohibited by law from working, as an employee or volunteer, with minors, if the registrant would be working with minors directly and in an unaccompanied setting on more than incidental or occasional basis or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over the child. If the registrant's crime was not against a victim under age 16, the registrant must notify the employer or volunteer organization of his status as a registrant. Failure to comply with this law is a misdemeanor offense. (California Penal Code § 290.95.)
 * The question of whether Wikipedia is the equivalent of unaccompanied is hard to dispute; more than "incidental or occasional" is also hard to dispute. There are underaged Wikipedians pretty much everywhere and all the time.  As we're online, the "Directly" issue is not in play here, but that just means we don't directly fall under that law, not that we as a community can't consider that law here as an analogy or standard to compare and consider.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to doubt your factual accuracy in that grooming on Wikipedia has been an actual problem, nor that that's where these concerns stemmed from originally. However I would assert that the extent to which it's been allowed to carry is more the result of disgust and hysteria. The previous consensus demonstrated in the discussions you've referred to have largely consisted of that hysteria rather than coherent arguments. With a topic like this, people have been allowed to support the practice based on nothing more than (what amounts to) "yeah it's disgusting, ban them all." The "hysteria" support has been instrumental.


 * In response to our exchange further up, yes we are dealing in hypotheticals, but important hypotheticals. I think the argument that this practice only serves to keep pedophiles quiet about their leanings has merit, and if so, I think this practice is actually dangerous. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, I think this practice needs to be examined openly and fully analyzed in an ArbCom case with testimony from both sides. That, I think, is the most sound way the best course of action can really be determined. Equazcion  ( talk ) 05:19, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sure that some of the support for the existing policy is due to relatively unreasoning hysteria. But that doesn't mean that supporters like myself, who have thought it through and can articulate and defend the policy reasoning, are not valid supporters.
 * I don't know that an open arbcom case would be any more useful than discussion here or on AN or the Village Pump. If you want to try and convince the community that the policy is dangerous you have to convince us.
 * So far - I do not disagree that your logic is reasonable, but I don't believe it's universal, and I think you're seriously underestimating our responsibility to act in cases where we do find that we have information identifying someone as a pedophile. Once we know there is a risk for a particular user, we become liable morally and possibly legally.  A vast majority of the public, and I think the Wikipedia community, will agree that driving pedophiles underground is probably not helpful to minimizing their damage, but will also insist that known identified risks be mitigated and not ignored.  Again, Pedophiles aren't allowed to teach school "and be closely watched".  They're fired as teachers.  No library would let one be a volunteer, etc.
 * The bigger issue you pose - that putting them underground may worsen the overall societal problem - is legitimately real, but not something Wikipedia can pretend we can solve. The solution US society as a whole has adopted is to kick known ones out of sensitive positions and areas.  We are not the place to try and change that policy.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're overstating 1) the "position" that we'd be allowing pedophiles to occupy, and 2) what the suggestion here is regarding how we aim to affect "pedophile activity". As far as #1 goes, we're not considering allowing them to be teachers, or any other figure in a voluntary or occupational position of authority or guardianship over children, or anyone else for that matter. They'd simply occupy the same space. As far as #2, no one suggested solving society's problems. As far as Wikipedia goes, which is as far as we need to concern ourselves, we have a choice between covering our asses and actually doing what will probably, realistically, have a better chance at protecting children, on Wikipedia. As you say, "the public" makes certain demands of us. Do they really know what's best? Maybe we should do what they expect, as without public support Wikipedia would fail. I don't know. The reason I want an arbcom case is so that I don't need to convince you. I want everyone to weigh in and relatively objective people to judge the various arguments with the scientific approach that ArbCom cases afford. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:00, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the anti-discrimination policy, it refers to legally protected characteristics. That list of characteristics is longer than the list of protected characteristics here in Australia, and I doubt that being a pedophile is a legally protected characteristic anywhere. That said, it would be interesting to hear of any anti-discrimination cases where this has come up. In Australia, anti-discrimination laws have an "out" in that it is legally acceptable to discriminate where it is justifiable in the circumstances, or where not discriminating would place an unreasonable burden on whoever has a duty of care. As the WMF is well funded by the public, it is probably not an unreasonable burden for the WMF to be able to provide a safe environment that doesn't discriminate against pedophiles (e.g. private user verification, registry checks, and active monitoring, or age verification and preventing emails being sent to minors), however I expect they would be able to argue it is justifiable to exclude them as their projects include children (for good or ill). John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment
This "page has fewer than 30 watchers" and "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

- Talk page guidelines --Jubilee♫ clipman 04:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold my hands up to violating the latter. Sorry about that  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we get it -- you want to stick to discussion of whether this page should become a policy, on the given premise that the practice has already been decided on. However, in project space, and especially on a policy or proposed policy's talk page, the practices themselves and the principles behind them are discussed often. That's one major function of policy talk pages. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:12, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy talk pages are one valid place to develop the policies, but should have notifications to and participation from Village Pump and AN and so forth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. I forgot that this was a !Policy page.  The above says "Article talk pages should not be used..."  And the MOS pages are getting serious review at present regarding the actual guidelines themselves and not just the wording or style of wording.  I forgot that for a moment, inexplicably.  We can indeed discuss the !Policy itself, here, therefore.  (I added ! because this !Policy is only proposed, BTW, not because I may or may not think it isn't actually Policy, just so we are clear.  We do need to actually propse it to the community soon.)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we see if we get a statement from Arbcom on the matter? It seems premature at this point to be proposing anything to the community when we aren't even really sure what the current situation is.  And I thought that this page was more to document what's already occurring (but not "policy"), rather than create new policy.  Part of the problem is, I think, that theres a good deal of confusion about what's actually acceptable, and what's likely to get a block.  This is part of the reason that I'd really appreciate Arbcom weighing in, as this seems to be sort of a meta-policy (aimed not help build an encyclopedia but rather to protect children from possible harm, as well as the reputation of Wikipedia) that shouldn't necessarily be made just by us lowly editors. Buddy431 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has historically remained quiet on this, so I wouldn't count on them weighing in, though it's of course possible. I suspect that if this practice is an actual ArbCom mandate (however unpublicized) (as opposed to a couple of sysops taking it upon themselves to interpret past events), that they wouldn't care much about whether or not we make an accurate policy, because they won't be bound by it anyway, and can and will continue to act however they see fit. I'll also state again that polices are not laws, and can actually remain exceptionally vague. The particulars can be handled on a case by case basis using "common sense". A statement that "admitted pedophiles are blocked" is probably enough, and whether or not a person can be considered a pedophile in a given case can be left up to the community at the time (and/or a sysop who chooses to act unilaterally, in our situation). Of course I'm far from being in favor of this practice, but I'm just setting the record straight on the nature of Wikipedia policies in general (as I understand them). Equazcion  ( talk ) 05:41, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Facts of past action essay

 * Proposal. I don't think it's appropriate to try to create a policy page yet, when there's lively disagreement about what the policy should be.  So I think we should turn this page into an essay, detailing past and current practices with regard to this topic.  Then, we open up a Request for Comment, cross post it at the usual places, and get more community input.  Here's my draft for the essay: User:Buddy431/pedophilia draft. Anyone's welcome to make changes to the draft as they see fit. Buddy431 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence "In at least one case, a user was blocked actions elsewhere on the interned (off-wiki) that led people to believe that he was a pedophile" is kind of confusing. Is it supposed to read "a user was blocked based on their actions elsewhere on the internet (off-wiki), which led people to believe that he was a pedophile"? Silver  seren C 07:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your reading is correct, and I've updated the sentence. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're looking for comments on the essay here or there, but in case it is here, the example using Despondent2 seems misleading. While Despondent2 did advocate for lolicon, this is not the same as advocating for pedophilia, (although it is related), and Despondent2 also self-identified as a pedophile. On those grounds the block could be more properly said to have come under the first, not the third, category. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I can't actually see what Despondent2 said (the secret police got to it first), so I was just basing it off the heading. Buddy431 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it was removed, and the initial AN/I message was about advocacy, so that's pretty much what I figured had happened. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've added more details. I wasn't thinking of this current case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So... Can I consider this consensus to paste my essay here and open up a Request for Comment? I've never opened an RFC before, so if someone wants to give me the lowdown, I'd appreciate it.  Or am I being premature? Buddy431 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the essay covers all of the viewpoints. I say go for it, though I have no idea how to open an RfC. Can anyone else help with that? Silver  seren C 04:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this would open further the enormous can of worms. But if you feel it is truly the way forward then I suggest starting a subpage of WP:RFC (perhaps Requests for comment/Pedophilia essay) placing  after thirty days. (If you don't at least timestamp the summary then everything up to the first signature will be copied over by bot to the RfC listing: see e.g. WP:RFC/A.) Anything I have missed, got wrong? More input would be necessary before going ahead I feel, particularly regarding the wording of the summary, the subpage name, and any categorisation of the RfC, as well as the wisdom of actually starting said RfC --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Buddy431, I don't think your essay belongs here. This page is about informing people of what will happen to pedophiles, as opposed to presenting both sides of the conflict. If there are questions about what belongs on this page or we want to request more input, your essay could probably be pasted at WP:Village pump (policy). The other option is an RFC, which can be done here: just create a new section on this talk page with  at the top and your introductory statement following. You could alternatively make an RFC subpage, but that's relatively more complicated to get started.  Equazcion  ( talk ) 14:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think starting the RfC here or indeed anywhere else other than a subpage of WP:RFC would complicate those already complicated talk, VP, etc pages further. An RfC could be started on the talkpage of the essay itself, however, I guess.  The RfC should still be listed at WP:CD and WP:VPP, though, at least, where ever it takes place  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "complicate" a talk page to add an RFC to it. VPP or a policy talk page are where RFCs like this tend to occur. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from the question of whether or not an RFC should be opened or not, I'm a little unclear on how the process works. If I understand correctly, I could either create a new page (a subpage of RFC) and stick the template at the top, with a short summery of what it's to be about.  Or, I could start a new section on this page, and stick the template there.  In either case, a bot will create a link to whatever category at wp:RFC I categorized the RFC as.  It's then my own job to cross post at the relevant places to get more visibility: probably Centralized discussion and Village pump (policy).  Is my understanding of the process correct? Buddy431 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if a new RfC section is created on this page. It makes it slightly less confusing that way and keeps all of the information centralized and not spread out through even more pages that other users have to sort through. If we are able to keep it just to this page, your essay page, and the links to other incidents in your essay, that will help in allowing other users to follow the discussion in its entirety more fully. Silver  seren C 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, the question becomes whether or not it's appropriate to open an RFC on this issue. user:Jubileeclipman suggests that it would "open further the enormous can of worms".  I agree that that's probably likely.  However, to me, that seems like really the best way to go forward from this point.  I think that this issue is important to discuss, and I feel that it affects the entire encyclopedia.  If we don't open an RFC at this point, then the issue will probably die and this page will remain an obscure information page, until someone slaps a block on someone else for being a "suspected pedophile".  I'd rather we try to get some sort of resolution on this now.  Some people on this talk page have claimed that consensus has been built in the past for this type of action, but I don't see any consensus.  I see certain administrators taking unilateral action on the matter, and there being general argument, but then the issue going away as people lose interest.


 * The only case where this doesn't seem to be the case is the 2006 wheel war, where some admins disagreed, and chaos ensued. In that case, Arbcom was kind enough to step in to stop the wheel war, but I don't see any indication that any consensus was developed during that ordeal as to the actual practice of blocking pedophiles.  They (and Jimbo) appear to tacitly endorse this practice, because the offending template was eventually deleted by Jimbo.  However, the user of it (user:Joeyramoney) was only using it as a joke, and so managed to get unblocked and continues to edit (well, not in the last 2 years, but he's not blocked).  Paradoxily, the Arbcom ruling also included the statement that
 * "It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales".
 * However, the practice has in the past not been carried out by Arbcom or Mr. Wales, and honestly, I don't see "broad community consensus".


 * So that's why I think getting further input is necessary in this case: I want to at least get broad community discussion, if not "broad community consensus". I also think that an RFC would be the best way to get this input.  I admit though that I'm not really familiar with this type of thing on Wikipedia, so if someone thinks that there are better ways to go about this than an RFC, I'm all ears (well, all eyes I guess... whatever). Buddy431 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Silver  seren C 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only remaining bit is my essay that I have in userspace. user:Equazcion suggested that this page should stick to how pedophiles are treated here.  I can agree with that in principle, but I think that if that's the case, what we have here is pretty lacking.  I'd at least like to see links to some of the past discussions and decisions, preferably with some prose summarizing what happened.  In that way, people reading the page can actually see for themselves how this is handled, rather than just be given a vague statement that "it is the policy... to indefinitely block any editor who self-identifies as a pedophile or who advocates pedophilia and refer the editor to the Arbitration Committee".  Some justification for the practice would be nice too (I'd like to see more of that on all of our policy pages...).  I tried to do some of that in my essay (looking at past actions), but I agree that my essay is really more about this current dispute.  I'm fine just leaving it in Userspace, and linking to it (here and in an RFC) so people can get some background. Buddy431 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We should see if we can find anymore incidents, reports, or other general information that has happened in the past related to this subject. If anyone else knows of such, please feel free to add it to the appropriate section in the essay.
 * I would also like some justification and, so far, Arbcom has not given it. In terms of breaking policy, it has yet to be shown that most of these users have done that, which is the major problem in my mind. Policy is what we go by here on Wikipedia. I know Ignore All Rules exists and all, but we should still back up our policies with some sort of justification and make sure that new policies do not conflict with old ones and, most definitely, do not conflict with the Pillars.
 * Linking to it is probably the best method. Make sure you link to it in the RfC as well, though I doubt you'd forget that. ^_^ Silver  seren C 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct about how the RFC would work, at least as far as putting it on a talk page goes (make a new section, post the tag and a preliminary statement, RFC bot lists it, we advertise on other page). Making a subpage requires more effort, at least if you follow the standard format: Template:RfC. This is normally used for user conduct RFCs, but is also sometimes modified for other issues. See Requests for comment/Self electing groups for an example. It may be worth the extra effort to make a subpage though, due to the more structured resulting discussion (IMO). For example, each unique sentiment only needs to be expressed once, with others being able to state their support with a simple signature, rather than creating a massive list of everyone's opinions all mishmashed together in one section, each with its own rationale to read. Again see the example link I provided to get an idea of what I'm talking about.


 * You may have several good points regarding ArbCom overstepping its bounds, doing what it said it wouldn't do, etc, but there are several obvious counter-arguments to that, such as WP:BURO and WP:IAR; even disregarding the fact that ArbCom doesn't seem to see the need to defend their practice to anyone, and probably won't, so long as the extent of the uproar against it stays at the current level. Still, an RFC might be useful in seeing how a highly visible discussion on this topic and the associated practice would go. Maybe it would yield a surprising result or new ideas for how the issue could be handled. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not even really sure that Arbcom's overstepping their bounds, but rather that they're not getting involved (which is fine), which means we need to hash it out ourselves. The trouble is, we haven't hashed it out ourselves, and in the past, we've (incorrectly, IMO) just blocked and said "it's sanctioned by Arbcom" when it's not in fact sanctioned by Arbcom.  Those are the people overstepping their bounds.  So I'm hoping to get some sort of consensus that can be pointed to in the future, so we don't have to cryptically refer to Arbcom's wishes that may or may not actually reflect Arbcom's wishes. Buddy431 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain what I meant by "I think starting the RfC here or indeed anywhere else other than a subpage of WP:RFC would complicate those already complicated talk, VP, etc pages further": the present talkpage is huge already and, if such an RfC generates a lot of interest, then we could end up with a talkpage that cannot be used for any other purpose than the RfC itself. (Imagine an RfC on a WikiProject's talk page: that actually happened, recently, and the RfC had to be moved to a subpage of the WikiProject's talkpage, though the refactoring etc was actually far more complex than that... don't ask unless you really want to know!) OTOH, the above and below huge discussion is practically an RfC, already, given the number of editors that have already expressed their views, albeit in a somewhat haphazard manner. You could almost stick the tag at the top of this entire page and be done with it... However, since the RfC would concern your essay, per se, I would use that essay's talkpage. That page is more or less blank except for your rationale for its existence—indeed, that statement is itself almost the best summary for the RfC (though we would need more probably)! I forgot something else that will help simplify the process, somewhat, where ever you decide to hold the RfC: "You could use the RfC posting tool..." (from WP:RFC). Never used it myself but I suspect it only creates the RfC so you will still need to inform the community via WP:CD (and/or (depending on the venue): WP:VPP, this present talkpage, your essay's talkpage). Hope I have helped and not ah... complicated matters further? --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the "complication" issue, I'll say again that this is no issue. RFCs are actually posted often at WikiProject talk pages, and other talk pages that are already big. There's no problem with that, and the fact is that big talk pages are the ones that are usually more prone to needing RFCs (big talk pages get that way because they're frequented more often, probably due to being controversial). If the RFC sections get too big they can be moved to subpages, as you pointed out, and/or other discussions on the page can be archived.


 * I wouldn't use a userspace essay for the RFC, if you do post one. The contents of this page are what's in question, so the RFC should be held here. The fact that another page has more space on it is just inconsequential. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case I am alluding to the WikiProject was almost brought to a stand still until the RfC was finally refactored (broken in half actually) and moved to a subpage (the other half was moved to the archives, for various reasons). I take your point about huge talkpages being the best place for an RfC, though.  I also take your point about avoiding userspace.  And your right: the Rfc would ultimately be about this !Policy page.  Use the tool to start the RfC here, Buddy431, and post a little note in the centeralised discussion box on WP:CD and notify those at WP:VPP (though that latter is almost superfluous given that the CD box transcludes onto that page anyway—best to be curteous, though, I guess).  Here then.  Only question: what do we say in the summary?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Making all of Europe paedophiles
Can I just point out that the age of consent in most of the European Union is 16, at least for male/female sex. In the UK it is 16 for sex with another person of any sex - there is separate legislation about inappropropriate relationships which covers specific cases (teachers and pupils, care home workers, youth leaders) which I believe includes relationships where the young person is aged 16-18. I would be extremely concerned if Wikipedia took the view that having a 16 y/o girlfriend was paedophilia, even though I personally would not have liked any of my own girls dating an older man when they were that age.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following some time ago, re the issue raised above.

It may be helpful to designate a minor as a young person considered under the age of consent in the editor's current location (if this is known or declared) AND in the state of California. So, an editor from Malta having sex with his 17 yo girlfriend is breaking the law in Malta, and in California; but an editor in the UK having sex with his 16 yo girlfriend is not breaking the law where he is, although he would be in California. This is a helpful method of getting around the discrepancies in age of consent around the world.

Certain acts constitute a crime under US or international law. These include the trafficking of young people under the age of 18 for the purpose of prostitution, dealing in or exchange of pornographic images of young people under the age of 18, and travelling or arranging travel for others, for the purpose of having sex with young people under the age of 18 (sex tourism). This list is not exclusive.

It may be helpful to narrow the field to acts which violate the law in the editor's locale, and which would also potentially cause a threat to the Wikimedia Foundation, as they breach US or international law.

It may not be helpful to use the term 'paedophile' - which has been argued by some to represent a state of being, and be unrelated to actual or potential illicit action. Avoiding the use of the word, and concentrating on the actions, may help to prevent the straightforward descending into a morass of contesting definition.

Thoughts?Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why California? The servers are in Florida.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because the Foundation offices are in California. I used to make that mistake.  There are servers in Amsterdam, too, don't forget.  Anyway, see my comment below about "getting bogged down in law"  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On concentrating on the actions: This policy has little or nothing to do with actions. The actions are illegal and would be ban-worthy (and more) without any special mandate. This has to do with admitting to a state of mind (or a desire or whatever we're calling it). On everything else, as I've stated previously on this page, Wikipedia policy doesn't need to be specific. In this case, I seriously think that as long as the policy states "pedophile", and as long as someone says something that causes sufficient discomfort to the general public in that regard, they'll be banned. Stating specific ages, age discrepancies between partners, etc. are more questions for lawmakers. We're only concerned with banning people whom the press would crucify us for not banning. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:54, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just had a thought. Would the press actually be able to make a problem out of this, considering the users they would be referring to haven't actually done anything. I mean, if the press actually uses the words "sex offender" on someone who isn't such, that would count as slander in and of itself. I think the press would have a problem if they tried to make a big deal out of this, considering they'd be making a big deal about people that haven't done anything. Silver  seren C 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is motivated by altruistic concern for (possibly falsely) accused humans. I think the concern is thoughtless press, like "When Wikipedia says that anyone can edit the encyclopedia, they meant that just about anyone can click 'edit this button'!  Why, just last week, a pedophilia activist told this reporter that he fixed the spelling in an article completely unrelated to pedophilia.  Obviously, parents should keep their children away from Wikipedia, since Wikipedia lets anyone fix spelling!  Next up:  Proof that the local grocery store allows pedophiles to buy food, even if children are present in the store!"  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about the gist of it, yes. The press isn't saying anyone did anything. Merely saying "Wikipedia lets pedophiles edit" is enough to make our elected officials nervous. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:17, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I'm told there have been actual "grooming" incidents, that could possibly be more of a concern. What isn't clear is whether or not they were carried out by people who had already self-identified as pedophiles. I suspect the combination of the occurrences and the tolerance of other people admitting be being pedophiles is enough for the press to draw some conclusion, so the latter is being disallowed. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:20, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)


 * The press can make anything of anything... --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Aren't we getting a bit bogged down in the Law, here? This has nothing to do with any law, rather the practice of ArbCom and avoiding potential scandal --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible to construct an arbitrarily complex web of laws for who is where doing what and whether one or both sides are doing something illegal, for consensual teenage participants.
 * However, this all is completely off topic for the purpose of this policy. We really don't care as a community about the near-ok grey area.  What we care about as a community are far dark grey and black areas, people who are significantly under their local age of consent, etc.
 * People don't self-identify as pedophiles because they're 18 with a 16 year old girlfriend. They self identify as pedophiles because they're attracted to much much younger children.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's Get To It
If we're going to open an RfC, then let's open an RfC already. Letting this thing stall and die here would not be good for the community, as it is almost certain that more complications of some form will arise in the future. So...we gonna do this? Silver seren C 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... I now have come to think that it might not be a bad idea to get this out in the open once and for all. Opening a can of worms isn't necessarily always a bad thing, I guess, and if by fully opening this one we get people talking about the issues rationally and openly then I say go for it. It's really that "talking...rationally" thing I'm most worried about now, though...  That caveat noted, RfC is better than burying the issue I guess  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think that burying it won't benefit anyone in the long run. This subject has come up time and again and caused a big ruckus every time. It would be better if we settled it with community consensus once and for all. I'm going to assume good faith that the community at large will be able to deal with this rationally and not emotionally. That might be a bit much to expect, but i'd like to think that the community can handle things. Silver  seren C 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I vote: "Go! Go! Go!" (as Murray Walker used to say)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But...but...I don't know how to open an RfC. o_o Buddy was going to do it, remember? He's the one that knows the wording for it anyways. Silver  seren C 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know how to open an RfC but don't know the wording for the summary statement... which will need to be discussed anyway, I suspect: we need to be be very clear what we are Requesting Comment on before we go ahead with this—mammoth—task... Are we asking that Buddy's essay is a fair statement of facts?  Or that this Information Page is a correct statement of the normal and best practice in dealing with self-IDed pedophiles?  Or that the !Policy should be indeed be written down in the first place?  Or what?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From what i've been able to tell, we want the RfC to be about whether this should even be allowed as a policy. As Arbcom does not have any jurisdiction until some sort of policy has been made. I am rather interested in what will happen if the community decides that this is wrong and no policy is made at all, but anyhow...from what i've gathered, we want to use Buddy's essay as a summary of the facts on both sides of the issue and whether a policy should or should not be created in the wording that this page is on. Simply, should admitted pedophiles, (I still think pedophile should be clarified somewhere to mean those that have an attraction, but not those that have actually done anything) be indef blocked immediately or should they not. Silver  seren C 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. That does appear to be the size of it.  We need Buddy back, though.  It's nearly 2am here, anyway, so I'll have to leave this for now and get back over here tommorrow.  No rush to do this, I guess?  We have to get it right really  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No rush. I just made this section because it seemed the discussion was stagnating. As long as we're still moving toward something, i'm happy. Now I have to get back to ANI. It's exploding right now. Another admin wheel-war. Silver  seren C 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording could be pretty simple... KnightLago's statement above detailing ArbCom's official stance, and ask the community if they agree. It gets complicated if you also want to include arguments for and against, so the community can see those prior to deciding. I renew my suggestion that an RFC subpage is the best way to get this done and form a clear picture of where the community is at. Requests for comment/Self electing groups can be used as a template, if anyone is interested. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh,I forgot to mention that I change my mind, I think a subpage would be better than this page. Way, way too crowded here. We just need to make sure that both sides are represented well when we do make the subpage. Silver  seren C 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Do we just disregard users that make an emotional no response to it? How do we determine what is emotional? Ect. Silver  seren C 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one gets to decide whose responses are valid and whose aren't. Whoever wants to comment can comment, whether they be emotional or calm or erratic. Comments aren't "mediated" there, at least not any more than other discussion areas. The reason I want an RFC subpage is due to the different structure, not because of talk page overcrowding (as I've tried to explain before, talk pages never get "too full", as things can always be archived etc). On an RFC subpage, the sides get represented by people who make statements. We just advertise the RFC, and people on both sides will provide the arguments (including us, assumedly). Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I gotcha. I've never been involved in an RfC before, so this will be a new experience. :3 Silver  seren C 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment from a sitting arbitrator
I don't know that a formal community policy is of benefit to anyone, including the community, particularly as its most likely effect will be to give problematic editors a way to wiki-lawyer their way out of a block. So let me say it straight up: Blocks of editors who declare themselves to be paedophiles (whether on or off-wiki) or who are pressing a paedophile agenda will continue to happen, and they will continue to be done quietly. This isn't a point of debate, to be honest. There are several factors which, quite simply, cannot be discussed on-wiki, largely involving the manner in which editors who are blocked for this reason are identified as falling into this classification. For example, private correspondence may be involved, in some cases relating to an underage editor. Paedophile advocacy sites sometimes give telltale clues to agendas that are not discussed on this site. For WP:BEANS reasons, the editing patterns and practices that are most closely associated with paedophile advocacy are not openly discussed; frankly, I don't think it is to the advantage of our own community to "help" such advocacy groups fine-tune their practices to attempt to avoid detection while continuing their work. The other reason for quiet blocking (preferably without using the "P" word anywhere in the discussion - administrators please note!) is that it is potentially harmful for the blocked editor to be identified in that way, if the administrator's assessment is incorrect. Our editing community has circumscribed the participation of those editing with an agenda almost since the inception of this site, and indefinitely blocking or banning those who abuse the site for their own agendas occurs on a regular basis, often on the basis of analysis by one administrator - and that is for situations where the only likely harm is a reader finding a biased article or two. In situations where there is a paedophile advocacy overlay, there is not only the biased agenda, there is the potential harm to our younger editors, and to our community's reputation. Nobody has the "right" to edit Wikipedia, and I am at a loss as to why this community should tolerate paedophile advocacy (or insist on complex and public, reputation-destroying processes) when we ban or indefinitely block people for edit-warring or page-moving without batting an eye. Risker (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that, as is clear by this long discussion. Such "advocacy" is often not as obvious as edit warring.  Aiken   &#9835;   14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's sometimes not as obvious. Indeed, there's as much (if not more) paedophile advocacy in articles whose titles don't appear to bear any relation to paedophilia than in those that touch on the subject. But, just as checkusers don't publicise the editing behaviours that assist them in identifying sockmasters (in order to avoid "teaching" sockmasters what to avoid in the future), it would be irresponsible to publicise the "tells" for paedophile advocacy edits. Make no mistake. This discussion is being closely monitored by paedophile advocacy groups so they can learn how to divide the community and fine-tune their agenda-based editing. Your "it's not as simple as that" is best responded to by administrators carefully reviewing the editing patterns (in context), making the quiet block, pointing the editor to Arbcom, and ensuring that Arbcom knows the basis for the block. Arbcom can, and has, lifted blocks that on closer examination give the strong appearance of being unfounded. Risker (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Block first, ask questions later? I don't like the sound of that. I certainly wouldn't want a mysterious block in my blocklog, that was placed because an admin decided I was something I was not. That is just as damaging as publicly accusing somebody.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The alternative (which I mentioned above) as in less clear cut cases, a person whose suspicions have been raised should email the Committee and let us look into the matter and take the appropriate action. This block first idea really applies to self-identified pedophiles, not people who are operating in a less clear manner. See my original post above. KnightLago (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct, KnightLago. In fact, I'd suggest that's the preferred course of action in all but the most blatant cases. Having said that, I want to make clear what the expectation is for administrators one way or the other. Risker (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is the point of this proposed policy... codifying practise. The word of an arbitrator is not law, but community approved policy (mostly) is.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed: that is exactly the reason we have this Information Page. Perhaps WP:DENY applies, anyway?  Perhaps, therefore, RfC is exactly what we don't need?  I'll ask KnightLago and Risker here and now: does this Information Page describe exactly "the current practices toward self-identified pedophiles and those advocating pedophilia"?  If so, we probably need to just leave this here and refer people to it as and when necessary (despite my recent "Go! Go! Go!" which perhaps needs the qualifier "Unless I'm very much mistaken...")  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As currently worded, it describes the status quo correctly. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But we should change the block first, ask questions later idea, except for only the clearest, obvious cases (self-identification). Everything else should be emailed to arbcom, who can investigate.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There may be other circumstances under which it is appropriate for admins to block first and notify Arbcom. For example, several former arbitrators in particular are well-versed in identifying pro-paedo advocacy, as are a few other admins; they should not be required to hold off on blocking. No admin should be prevented from blocking an obvious advocacy sock, regardless of whether or not they "self-identify". What is written on this current version of Pedophilia is the status quo, and will remain so. Risker (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will it? Says who? I'm very concerned that you find blocking first, ask questions later to be an acceptable method of dealing with this. As someone said previously, mistakes have been made, and I for one would not want a mistake like that tarnishing my good record. Would you?  Aiken   &#9835;   16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please point out to me where someone claims that a mistake has been made. I'm not seeing it on this page unless it's couched in some term that doesn't show up on my search. You might want to email me, if it involves the name of an editor who has been cleared of any issues. Risker (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You did: "Arbcom can, and has, lifted blocks that on closer examination give the strong appearance of being unfounded". That should not be happening - the block should not be given in the first place.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. All kinds of blocks are lifted when there is reason to lift them. I can think of two occasions where it was decided the block was not appropriate; in both cases, as I recall, there was discussion with the blocking administrator about the appropriateness of the block in the first place, and in both cases the blocked editor had made edits in the paedophilia topic area. That's pretty much the standard for one-off errors in judgment on blocking. Nobody wants people to be incorrectly blocked, don't get me wrong, but there's little difference between correcting an error in a block that is done discreetly and discussed quietly and privately and one that's discussed in vivid colour on ANI, except for the level of drama, hurt, embarrassment and residual bitterness on the part of all parties that accompanies the ANI discussion. Risker (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all well and good, but it still doesn't actually address the "is blocking admitted pedophiles really the best course of action" question that's been explored rather extensively above. Dealing with actual advocacy was never really in doubt, especially since any kind of advocacy aimed at influencing articles isn't good in general. The "admitted pedophiles" part was the big question, and one which ArbCom hasn't even defended with any sort of rationale yet (though many have offered their educated guesses and conjecture here). Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious, I would think, and other editors have already addressed this. Short of assigning someone to review every edit proposed by self-acknowledged paedophiles in advance of them being posted, and locking down their ability to send emails(which I do not believe we can technically do without actually blocking them), we have no way of preventing them from making inappropriate contacts with young editors. Wikipedia is not therapy, as is often said, and this is a psychiatric condition that can easily cause harm to others, and to the encyclopedia, through the use of our site. Permitting self-acknowledged paedophiles access to underage editors is problematic from an ethical, moral and potentially legal perspective. Risker (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "legal" part seems like an excuse to me, to allow us to go with our gut regarding the other two, ie. blocking people we find too morally reprehensible for comfort. As much as it's been addressed above, the addressals (is that a word?) have also been addressed (in other words, there have been counter-arguments). Most prominently, from a purely practical standpoint, the people who are self-admitted seem least likely to be the ones trying to contact young people; and blocking people when they admit it just sends a message to others that they best keep it to themselves. When you you take both of those together, this policy wouldn't seem to help matters. If we're not as concerned with the practical as we are with protecting Wikipedia's reputation and covering our asses, this essentially superficial show of condemnation for pedophilia might be effective. Equazcion  ( talk ) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Equazcion, I am sorry you feel that way. But what Risker and I have written is the position of the Arbitration Committee, and I would say a large part of the community as well. Pedophilia, whether through self-identification or advocacy, is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and will remain that way. KnightLago (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Equaczion, nobody knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of most people; we can't address problems we don't know about, and if the issue doesn't manifest itself in a way that can come to our attention, we as a community cannot correct it. The site generally operates on the principle of assuming good faith, but AGF isn't a suicide pact, and blocking editors who have made it clear that they have a condition that is pretty obviously going to create problems for the project seems to be a clearcut decision. Advertising oneself as a paedophile is disruptive in a project where a significant proportion of the editors are underage; I can't think of a single site that features participant interaction across all age groups where self-acknowledged paedophiles are welcome. Risker (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't many sites like Wikipedia around, that's for sure. New editors more than often come here expecting us to be like other sites, ie. a place where you can post your opinion as official without respecting NPOV. True, we can't address problems we don't know about, but we can look intelligently at the big picture and formulate a strategy that best serves the public, as opposed to dealing with individual situations in the way that best comforts us, as the two are often in opposition. I've described what I believe to be a rather good argument for why this practice only hurts the big picture. Wouldn't you rather they advertise it than keep it a secret? History has surely shown us that people excluded from a popular group are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded than to cease attempts to gain acceptance. Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot in any way see how your suggestion would improve anything. Permitting people to self-declare as paedophiles will not reduce anyone's risk at all. More importantly, Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to be the one place on the 'net where paedophiles can openly declare themselves and still be allowed to come in contact with thousands of youngsters. Sorry Equaczion, but I believe your thinking with respect to paedophilia is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians, not to mention just about every extant society. Risker (talk)
 * Perhaps it is. But when a debate comes down to a statement of the majority opinion as rationale, accompanied by a "well this is the way it is whether you like it or not", that can only make us doubt the thinking behind it even more (again, these are basic historical lessons). Stalwart positions are rarely helpful in realizing the best course of action. Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've not presented any "historical lessons" that the risk was reduced by permitting such disclosure and permitting self-acknowledged paedophiles access to children. You've only shown that people who don't meet the requirements to participate in certain activities will try to hide the fact that they don't meet the requirements. It's hardly the same thing. Risker (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what he said at all. He is stating in a general viewpoint, not directly about pedophilia, like you seem to have twisted it. He means that, quite often, in history when a leader or a government or anyone like that says, "Things are like this because I say it is and it doesn't matter what you think", it is proven that that person or group is wrong. That is why we have democracy after all, so that no one can say something like that and actually have the power to back it up. We have the majority that can decide what it is that they want to do and that is what we are saying should happen here. If you are so certain that the community will side with you, then you should have no problem with bringing it up with the community, for once consensus is made, that is the way it is. Without community consensus and seemingly just Arbcom's arbitrary control over this entire situation, it seems like Arbcom is attempting to sidestep the community and decide things entirely on their own and to make things as they want it. This is not what Arbcom was created to do, this is not it at all. Silver  seren C 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is essentially what I meant. I'm not sure that Risker twisted it intentionally though, he may have just misunderstood. But yeah, a person arguing from a solid foundation never ends up responding to a debate with "sorry but this is just how it is". That's rather what one says when they've been adequately backed into a corner and the outcome is nevertheless theirs to decide. I'd like to see an RFC, and I don't know if Risker is necessarily opposed to one. Though it's not clear if ArbCom would respect the outcome should it conflict with their views, it might still be difficult to ignore, and might influence things over time. I'd be satisfied myself if everyone were to just think about this more rationally and practically than they are currently, and if the outcome is the same, then so be it... but these are really points that rightly deserve consideration, and dismissing them off the bat for no good reason isn't smart. IMO. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote you directly: "History has surely shown us that people excluded from a popular group are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded than to cease attempts to gain acceptance." We're talking about paedophiles. I had every reason to believe that you were applying that historical theory (which again you've provided no evidence for) to this specific situation. Perhaps you need to pay a bit more attention to the history of this site, though. The process for dealing with paedophiles developed as a result of the community becoming increasingly more aware of the adverse effects to the encyclopedia that were associated with both paedophile advocates and self-declared paedophiles on the site; it did not emerge fully formed from a vacuum. It was interfering with the project's purpose. And no, the practice is not going to be changing. Your positions have been refuted, (which I believe is what you refer to as "dismissing them off the bat") and the well-being of the project as a whole takes precedence. Risker (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was applying more general historical lessons to this specific case. Just because I didn't point to one that specifically involved pedophiles doesn't nullify the point. "...people excluded from a popular group..." -- we're dealing with that situation here -- "...are more likely to hide that aspect which makes them excluded..." -- so history has taught us to expect that outcome. "...as a result of the community becoming increasingly more aware..." -- Traditionally though, Wikipedia hasn't really been a place where mass panic is bowed to. We're more enlightened than everyone else, in most regards. When lots of people have an issue, whether we accommodate them still depends on there being a good practical reason to. Determining the best practical ways to deal with any actual threat seem to take a backseat in this case though. Our withdrawn and objective stance seems to dwindle depending on just how heinous a topic we're dealing with. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, so far, the only "hysteria" I see is of the "OMG we're not letting self-identified paedophiles edit!!!" type. There wasn't any particular hysteria at the time that these processes were instituted, only a pretty nasty streak of trolling and people being so enamoured of written process that they couldn't see the forest for the trees. The current processes do not reflect hysteria, and are intended to reduce such. If you can think of methods to supplement the current process, speak up; but condemning the manner in which genuine, known threats are being dealt with because they aren't necessarily effective in addressing unknown threats seems rather precious. Risker (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Presumably it means to avoid making potentially defamatory block summaries. Prodego  talk  19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, presumably because either calling them a pedophile or linking to this essay would be defamation, of a sort. Silver  seren C 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the word "uncharacterized" where block summaries are mentioned the first time, cause the word "neutral" didn't really seem to convey the point adequately. Yes, that's what it means, basically; the actual block reason shouldn't be specified publicly, because otherwise someone's name could easily get smeared for life as a result of this. This isn't exactly a foolproof or legally thorough investigation, so no one should be publicly denounced as a result of it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But is this protection necessary as the block comes as a consequence of self-identifying? __meco (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly it doesn't just come from self-identifying, because we're also talking about advocacy. Secondly though I would say yes, it's still needed in the case of self-identification, because while our policy is to block on first sight of the admittance, the circumstances behind the admittance isn't something we investigate at all. It could have been a joke or a dare; but those are purely examples off the top of my head. The point is we don't know, and we don't want to mess up anyone's future as a result. IMO, we don't have the right to make someone's self-admittance a matter of permanent record. The point of this policy is just to get them off the encyclopedia, not make announcements to the public that for all intents and purposes can never be taken back. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, it means don't write "Warning: pedophile alert!!!" or some such; however, I think that both (who first used the word "neutral" in this context on the info page) and  (the ArbCom member who was the first to clearly endorse the use of that word above) are suggesting more than that. My reading of the above lengthy discussion is that the block itself should be based on the Blocking policy and therefore the block summary should be something like "actions that place users in danger" while the underlying reason for the block remains pedophile-advocacy or self-identification as a pedophile—both of which genuinely could "place users in danger", including the subject of the block, indeed.  (So "yes", Meco, this protection is necessary and, furthermore, the objectionable edits are usually deleted and the history itself only open to admins.  But "no" the summary will be viewable by anyone, presumeably.) --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Actions that place users in danger" is relatively mild but still carries the same essential problem. The practice has actually been to leave a simple "contact arbcom regarding this block" or maybe a "disruptive editing" summary, so far. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They make equal sense. It would be the admin's call, I guess, but they certainly shouldn't use any potentially defamatory or libelous language so a "neutrally worded block summary" (to be more precise, perhaps) is necessary  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I most strongly agree with Equazcion's "Contact Arbcom regarding this block" as the summary to use, as even a summary like Jubilee's "Actions..." could prove problematic if, say, it was decided that the blockee had no paedophilia (or other blockable) involvement. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: I hadn't thought of it that way when I wrote the above. Indeed, even "disruptive editing" might not be correct since disruption in this case implies interruption and disorder affecting other editors which latter is not always the case.  Sematics aside, though, the summary needs at least to contain the words "contact WP:ARBCOM" since they are indeed the people to talk to regarding such a block  --Jubilee♫ clipman  12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


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

This page should be classed as policy
Because it is policy. Policy is practice; policy is what we do, and this page describes that. I've read the talk page above, and I've yet to see any convincing argument why Policy shouldn't be added here. Robofish (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We went round in circles with that one several times trying all the various options: see the page's history. infopage is the only tag most people can agree on—or at least not object to  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally the page was supposed to be a vague description of what action outside observers could expect to see when a pedophile is encountered. It seemed to have been settled on that that would not be a policy. However I later took the initiative in adding specifics, particularly instructions for administrators and editors encountering pedophiles, based on information provided by ArbCom comment above. I did this because I felt that the information should be made available, less mysterious and vague, both to benefit operation and facilitate focused discussion of the practice. The result may have been that this page feels more policy-like now.


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


 * I have just rewritten the page more inline with my original comment and added the policy tag. This has been the policy of the English Wikipedia for years, just unwritten. To deny that fact, when the previous version of the page I just edited even said so, is to bury one's head in the sand. KnightLago (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this not part of Banning policy? --Conti|✉ 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Well, we can just call it a guideline, which is closer to what it is. Or an information page. I'm hesitant to call it a policy, myself, for a lot of reasons. Risker (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you just said, though official WP Guidelines also need full community support (witness the brouhaha surrounding WP:WTW...) --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I switched the tag back to the  tag per BRD. There is nothing within the arbitration policy that says arbcom can write policy on its own without community consensus. I agree with Jubileeclipman that a community-wide RfC is in order before any page is marked as a policy. As mentioned above, there has not yet been an established community consensus on pedophilia, just an arb-com consensus. We need community consensus to establish policy pages in the mainspace, not just the opinions of a few arbcom members. It's actions such as this that lead me to think ArbCom is getting a bit out of control.  Them  From  Space  17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Disabling email
I think the intention behind that is to prevent them from possibly contacting kids through the wiki. The side effect is that they can't contact administrators to discuss the block, of course, but they will be directed to the arbcom email address. If we're to have this policy that should probably be re-inserted. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized the email thing wasn't even removed. I was making an assumption based on the edit summary. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I made this change. Anything more than that and I would have asked here first. KnightLago (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had actually misread the previous version when I reverted: sorry about that! The page makes more sense and is less ambiguous now that KnightLago has further clarified things  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To summarize, my question is, is there something qualitatively unique about the violations (against Wikipedia guidelines and policies) made by a group labeled "pedophile editors" or "pedophilia advocating editors"? And by qualitatively unique I require that similar qualities are not found in other advocacy/interest groups that have not been singled out for special treatment (e.g. drug policy advocacy, proponents of suicide bombings and Sharia laws or the execution of Fatwahs). __meco (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, there is nothing unique about them, besides the "gross" factor that is connected with pedophilia (and the illegal factor as well, true, but the same could be said for most drugs). And do note that "admitted pedophiles" when discussed on this information page refers to people with admitted pedophilic likes or tendencies, not convicted pedophiles. Just pointing that out. Silver  seren C 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, sir (or madam), and the unfortunate answer is that not everyone is as smart or objective as you are. "I don't know how any intelligent person could not see it my way" has been the basic response to requests for objective evidence. Above, an arbitrator sarcastically wrote that opponents were saying "OMG we're not letting self-identified paedophiles edit!!!"; which basically shows the degree of subjectivity we're dealing with. How can any intelligent person possibly be a proponent of pedophiles being allowed to edit? How indeed. What disgusting or excessively pedantic individual would argue for such a thing, or even for requiring the usual amount of process and debate before sanctioning a special banning practice? The taboo nature of the subject means that if you put too much thought into this, you yourself are a reprehensible person. Meco, if the general public or even just our arbitrators were as level-headed as you, we might not be here. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The document answers you quite unequivocally, IMO: "Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely." Basically, anyone that states (either on WP or elsewhere) "I am a pedophile", creates or displays a user box stating that they are a pedophile or makes any equally—or even more obviously—objectionable statement will be blocked on sight, per "In clear cases".  "Advocacy" is more complex but I would suspect that anyone advocating infantophilia would be banned and blocked while anyone simply suggesting a change in their country's law to lower the AoC by a year or two would be fine.  "In less clear-cut cases" would apply in the latter case but "In clear cases" would apply in the former.  Basically, WP:UCS...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I think is being asked is more of a "why" scenario. And the fact of, is the reason for this because it's something illegal? If so, then anyone who states doing or having an interest in anything else illegal should also be banned. Silver  seren C 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We are seriously going round in circles now... The point of this practice (and de facto Policy) is to protect our younger editors.  Self-proclaimed murderers and even self-proclaimed terrorists and advocates of thse crimes are not a "Clear and Present Danger", AFAIK, unlike self-proclaimed pedophiles and pedophile advocates --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that reasoning, however, have there been episodes that were deemed perilous to our younger audience related to these editors which have now been removed? My point is: Were these editors using Wikipedia to solicit minors for presumably sexual relations, were they posting child pornography or were they attempting to publish links to illegal websites? Shouldn't we be presented with, if not actual cases, at least a brief overview of what the past incidents were that engendered the creation of this page and the related would-be policy? __meco (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Meco, we are not going to provide examples of when these things happened, although you might want to look back to early 2006 when the matter was discussed in several places on-site. More particularly, in response to your earlier comments in this thread, we *do* routinely indefinitely block individuals who come onto this site to advocate violence against others or with a specific advocacy agenda that adversely affects the content and/or editing climate of the encyclopedia (your examples of drug policy advocacy, proponents of suicide bombings and Sharia laws or the execution of Fatwahs could all fit in there). Risker (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Meco did mention that he's speaking of situations where users edit articles related "in order that they become more neutral and less biased against this position", rather than the kind of editing that adversely affects content. And, stating you have an attraction isn't advocating acting upon it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that a genuine edit that seeks to balance an article is going to lead to a block and/or ban—especially if that edit is properly sourced. And stating you have an attraction to prepubescents is bound to get a few funny looks at the very least...  I think it really is as obvious as that  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That apparent rejection of transparency (i.e. a vague reference for interested individuals to investigate unspecified discussions that took place in early 2006) makes it nearly impossible (or at least very difficult) to validate the rationale for this page and the policy being proposed/asserted. Since these instruments clearly constitute extraordinary measures I think that the process that has led us to where we currently are has to be documented.in order for it to comply with some basic principles on which this project (Wikipedia) is based. I am thinking primarily of the decision-making processes based on consensus and the necessity for leaving a trail which makes this consensus-making process visible. __meco (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is due to the sensitive nature of the subject that more precise details cannot be provided. Saying 'such-and-such happened at such-and-such time involving such-and-such person' would raise all kinds of problems, both legal and ethical, and would be a really bad idea. A very broad summary (as I understand it) is that around 2006 the issue of users self-identifying as paedophiles was first brought to community attention, and a consensus developed that such users should be blocked indefinitely. I can't point to the actual discussion, but suffice to say this is policy and has been for some time. Beyond that, you're just going to have to trust ArbCom on this one. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find both your reply and the similar reply from Risker extremely unsatisfying. Indeed, if this remains the situation with regards to this page and the related policy, that would constitute a direct opposition to the principle of transparency in policy-making matters. If this policy was enacted in society at large it would be a blatant violation of human rights and due process. __meco (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a website, not "society at large", and the policy has been transparent since it was invoked - Arbcom had to tell admins to do this, so everyone knew.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia may not be society at large, but the same principles apply. ArbCom was never supposed to decree rules unilaterally, and in fact said that it wouldn't, despite the fact that it probably could since it has so much power; and now, it is. Wikipedia belongs to its community, as we're generally told, and that's just not how things are done. From where I'm standing, by definition, this is an abuse of power. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The scope of Arbcom's powers almost entirely pertains to disputes raised to them. It does not, in the slightest, pertain to creating policy for all of Wikipedia. Policy made, just like anything else, has to be done through community consensus, not by Arbcom decision. Furthermore, according to their transparency policy, Arbcom has yet to release a detailed rationale for this decision. All we've heard so far has either been a "because we say so" or has been arguments that are one-sided and not strong or detailed at all. In total, Arbcom neither has the authority to make this a policy nor has it followed its own rules for making decisions as it is. Silver  seren C 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, I have posted a link to the relevent Userbox TfD on this very talk page and that same section (Past actions) contains other links. Buddy's essay is also still available: User:Buddy431/pedophilia draft.  I would strongly resist adding those links to the document itself, however, since the whole point of this !Policy is to make as little fuss as possible when dealing with such editors; parading their names—even indirectly—on the very document that discusses how to deal with such editors quietly and unfussily goes against the very spirit of the practice outlined in that document.  Hence, I also would not recommend RfC (discussed several times now) but simply change the status to Policy per Jimbo's wise words on his talkpage  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that those other situations fail to explain how the user was damaging the project. Especially the situation with the "This user loves girls as opposed to boys" userbox, which gave no indication, beyond presumption of the links, that the user had done anything wrong. Silver  seren C 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What this then becomes is nothing less than a "take them away quietly" doctrine justified on the premise that those being "taken away" needs to be protected from the community at large, i.e. their actions have been so hineous and detestable that they would become subject to harassment, ridicule, even persecution. This whole secrecy-enshrouded policy makes sure that the ostracism of people who voice their opinions in this area in opposition to social consensus remains solidly in place. In fact, this hush-hush practice – and its inception – cements the removal of utterances which challenge the consensus under the guise of protecting either these perfunctorily labeled anti-social individuals or "our children". If this isn't insidious it sure is thoughtless. __meco (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And if this were a forum dedicated to WP:FREESPEECH you might have a point. However, it is an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment is utterly non-sequiturial. My principal argument is that we should have transparency in our policy-making. Besides, how would suppressing certain opinions be particularly compatible with making an encyclopedia? __meco (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I have removed some comments that were specific to an individual editor. It is inappropriate to discuss one particular editor's block here, particularly when there is a block reason directing any comments to the Arbitration Committee. Please respect that user's privacy. If you have a *need* to know more about their block (need != curiosity), you can contact the blocking administrator or Arbcom by email. I will review this page in its totality in a brief while to remove any specific references to other blocked editors as well. Risker (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All that we linked were normal edits and available information for the user. We had no criminal information on him, so it wasn't an invasion of privacy. Silver  seren C 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By discussing his block on this page, you are speculating that this editor was blocked for reasons related to paedophilia. There are other reasons besides paedophilia-related editing that blocks of editors are referred directly to Arbcom; almost all involve private or personal information about the individual (e.g., physical or mental health issues). The discussion of a specific editor's block on this page, where the focus of discussion is on blocking paedophiles and paedophilia advocates, essentially labels the editor a paedophile. Please do not do that. Risker (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Risker: I almost posted a whole load more links related to that user... just as well I took longer than expected (due to server drop out my end) to find everything! Hopefully the rest of my post is OK given that I don't actually ID that editor.
 * @Meco: I just reviewed that editor's block log, contribution history and user talk history. The user talk was Oversighted as most likely were many of that editor's contributions (which, incidently, is why I linked to that process when I added the See Also originally).  This all actually proves how effective and important this process is.... assuming that this editor was blocked for self-identification as a pedophile or advocacy. But I have absolutely no idea why this editor was blocked (which might be due to something else entirely) precisely because of the Oversighting and neutral block summary.  Obviously, I am guessing (I don't even have Rollback let alone Sysop!) but I suspect my analysis is correct --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However, if it was for advocacy, that would be a very weak argument. Would you say that the mere fact that he edited articles related to pedophilia made him an advocate? I wouldn't, but some might and it might be that sort of accusation that got him blocked, since it appears that before this information page, even an accusation would be enough to get someone indef blocked. If he never tried to resolve it, then that verdict would stand, even if it was entirely unfounded. Silver  seren C 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't know why the editor was blocked... which is the very point of the neutral block and the Oversighting --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's no possible way for us to know, which is quite shady. Arbcom shouldn't be the FBI here. Silver  seren C 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please check the actual case with ArbCom? __meco (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't you, Meco? Just email  and ask.  You won't be allowed to report back, though, that I can assure you of here and now  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unable to do it, suffice to say. __meco (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An opinion
FWIW --Jubilee♫ clipman  13:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do I have the feeling that he didn't even look at the talk page? :/ We've already explained quite succinctly why turning this into a policy isn't a good idea. Silver  seren C 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have requested that Jimmy Wales visit this page and address the above section. __meco (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er... WP:AGF probably applies here, especially in the case of the Founder... --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On the power of ArbCom
(Warning, semi-essay, semi-rant to follow)

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

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

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

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

Hence, this policy.

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

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

Does it mean that such a policy will always do the right thing? Probably not. Definitely not. We're 12-18 fallible human beings. Does the committee as a whole agree that this is required to protect the encyclopedia? Yes. Is it the best balance that can be achieved between protecting children, Wikipedia's reputation, our desire for fairness and transparency, and the reputation and life of those editors that &mdash; even if they are too dangerous to keep &mdash; remain human beings? Definitely. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because we elect people for a position doesn't mean that position doesn't have specified boundaries. We elect ArbCom to perhaps tweak policy as a result of an ArbCom case, but not to create policies wholesale whenever they feel necessary. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ruling when existing policies and traditions conflict is, however, what we were elected to do. In practice, this invariably mean "filling the gap" by finding where in between things should fall.  That policy has existed, implicitly, for years now &mdash; I'm not sure I agree with the need to publicize it, but documenting current practice is how such things get written.  In practice, that policy will remain regardless of what happens to this page.  ArbCom will continue to do the quiet bans and will restrict the explanation to the banned user alone, and will not permit discussion of the particular bans.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I say policy, I don't generally mean this page and its potential "policy" tag on top. I mean the practice. I'm not against this page existing or being tagged if it describes what's being done, but I do continue to question what's being done. You saying that ArbCom will continue to do what it does doesn't really answer my concern, it rather confirms my reason for being concerned. I'm not sure how one differentiates between finding gaps and creating new policies, but that feels like an awfully ambiguous distinction ripe with abuse potential, when the "need" seems "urgent" enough. Besides which, there was no case and no ruling. Even if your "gap filling" theory panned out, you're only supposed to be filling gaps when you come across a case that warrants it, as result of the arbitration process. If you show me some document that says differently, I might have to reconsider, but so far this is my understanding. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's ripe with abuse potential.  It is, I believe the best word is, perilous.  It's one of those cases where, I suppose, trust in numbers is key: do you honestly believe that not one arbitrator would speak up if abuse there was?  Nevertheless, I, and the committee, know this is a necessary evil.  I understand, and respect, the principle under which you object &mdash; but I disagree with it and I'm pretty sure you're in a relatively small minority.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that your explanation would make ArbCome ripe with abuse potential is my basis for saying that your explanation is inaccurate. I don't think ArbCom was ever meant to do things like this. They don't write policy nor do they fill policy gaps, nor do they create new practices. They merely rule on cases. I believe it's even been said that such rulings are not necessarily to be used to make policy changes. I think it's actually more than possible that 12 to 18 people could go along with each other and not necessarily recognize an abuse of their own power. That's not a very large group, relatively speaking. Perhaps I am in the minority, perhaps not. It's hard to tell when so few people are aware of what's going on. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbcom deals with disputes, sometimes they are disputes over policy. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but in cases where there is a dispute over it, they may get involved and resolve that issue in a way that clarifies the policy. But I maintain that arbcom can't just write a policy and enact it. Coren, you can't do quiet bans and prohibit discussion of them on your own, we will not allow it. So you must ask, are you acting alone? I don't think you are. Prodego  talk  00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * My personal belief is that the policy is subject to community review, as is everything, but that another community review will support Arbcom's current policy as enforced.
 * As I said when this started, it's not like this hasn't come up before. It's controversial in that a small minority of people always object in principle to the policy.  But a large majority have always agreed that it's reasonable and ok with them.  The community can be asked again, if we want to do something else.  But expanding "I have a concern" to "The community has a concern" does not logically follow.  The vast majority of people don't find the policy to be unreasonable or objectionable.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

A knee-jerk response to what I have just written would be that I'm letting my conspiracy-prone inclination get the better of me, because no one or no group would actually be so fanatical on this issue that such a thing would ever come to manifestation. Oh really? __meco (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As of Arbcom explanations so far and the scanty evidence given, I have seen no indication that such a lynch mob has ever formed and, as I have faith in the community, I personally believe that one never will. Silver  seren C 08:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your faith is misplaced. Look up "userbox wars" if you want to see the underlying case that started this and the clash of the lynch mobs that caused it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)