Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 8

Is bestiality OK?
Pedophiles are clearly perverts who will destroy our social order, but I think we need to retain tolerance for alternative lifestyles that are non-harmful, such as loving relationships with animals (especially sheep). death metal maniac (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit, you made me laugh. My normal response would be that it depends on what state they live in, since it's legal in a few and illegal in the rest. That's what I would have said, except that there seems to be some sort of double-standard or something going on with this "policy", so, as long as it's not pedophilia, you're good on any other activities, illegal or not. You're a murderer? That's okay. You distribute drugs? That's fine too. You rob liquor stores? Come right on in. Silver  seren C 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread conflicts with WP:NOTFORUM and I would be happy for it to be removed, however the ideas presented are misguided since there are no known cases of an editor using an online site to groom a sheep or propose murder or distribute drugs. Furthermore, it is very rare for people to use websites to promote the benefits of sheep or murder or other crime (although people sometimes advocate legalizing some forms of drug distribution). By contrast, websites are one of the few ways an adult can groom children or promote misinformation about pederasty and its alleged benefits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lay off. It's an editor voicing his concerns in a sarcastic manner. LiteralKa (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are a distressingly large number of websites that advocate murder. Also that advocate violence, violence against women, race hate and other criminal activities. By and large, I think using Wikipedia to advocate (say) the murder of one's annoying neighbour would see one run off the site, but I believe that a person who murdered his annoying neighbour could edit successfully, even from his cell in Strangeways if he complied with the rules.  Paedophilia pushes people's buttons, it is perceived as a worse crime than  others, and Wikipedia being at the end of the day a privately owned website, one simply has to accept that it is not something that the site managers will tolerate. As for the welly wearer, I can only recommend that he obtains written consent from the sheep first :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Death threats occur on the wiki. Murder is proposed. LiteralKa (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, you really, really need to take a deep breath. Good god.  Swarm   05:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the actual child protection guidelines?
Okay, we don't want pedos, but seriously, there has to be text that protects what is revealed about children in articles. I know most news agencies won't post pictures or names of children to protect their privacy; surely we have some text somewhere that tells us how to handle these situations. I've run into them several times, and every time I look for a guideline on info about children, I come across this and get distracted commenting on what a terrible policy it is. Swarm  05:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about laws? LiteralKa (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about Wikipedia policies or guidelines, unless you know of a Florida law that clearly places boundaries on this.  Swarm   06:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPNAME covers this. As a general rule, children should not be named or discussed unless it has clear relevance to the topic.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks.  Swarm   06:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd redirect
Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults lists a number of AFD's, one which was for Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction, which now redirects here. I'm not sure why this redirect exists, but I think the lists are an interesting topic for discussion here, as they keep on getting deleted and recreated with different names. I think people may be concerned that the lists are somehow useful to people attracted to children. Thats normally not a rationale for deletion (other reasons are apparent), but i just wanted to link these here in case theres a need for discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy template
Please note that the template official policy used to create the " official policy" message on this page has been proposed for deletion. Please join the discussion or consider alternatives.--Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the TfD it got changed to Legal Policy, which I strongly object to. This is not a legal issue for Wikipedia, which is what that template is for (Things like copyright issues, public liability, and legal threats). This policy was not created to protect Wikipedia from legal issues, but rather about someone's idea of morals, NPOV, and protecting children. Pro-pedo advocacy does not break the law, but it is something we reject on Wikipedia. Thus it is just a policy, not a legal policy. This may be a semantic argument, but I believe it to be an important point. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the template changed to what it is now is highly inappropriate and, in a manner of speaking, is saying that certain things are illegal when they are not, which can be seen as rather offensive to certain groups. Silver  seren C 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Legal issues could arise if someone used the "e-mail this user" feature for grooming. Also, libel could occur if untrue allegations were made in project space. I agree that the range of freedom of expression on Wikipedia is a policy issue, not a legal issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this policy does have some legal implications, so the template isn't wrong. Really the whole issue should be dealt with at WMF-wide level (I don't know why it isn't, since it's claimed this is a WMF board decision) and we should just have a link to their policy.--Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a legal policy, so I have switched it over to the general policy template. This topic area, though, is now specifically covered by the WMF-wide terms of use, so someone digging up the right links should probably add that. Risker (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back. The enforcement of this policy sometimes involves calling the police, and frequently should involve contacting the WMF's legal team.  There are also specific requirements in place for legal reasons, like not putting "because he's a pedophile" into the block log.  I think therefore it is accurate to describe it as "a policy with legal considerations".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What law is involved here? Be specific. If you can't identify one, then this isn't a legal policy. Writing a block summary  like "because he's a pedophile" only puts the person writing that in legal jeopardy, although it would certainly be suppressed. Risker (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go further here: the tag was applied without discussion or consensus, and it's pretty clear that there's no consensus to keep it on. Therefore, it needs to go.  Risker (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a brief further discussion with WhatamIdoing on his/her user talk, and it appears that the major concern s/he has is with respect to inappropriate block summaries. If that is the case, then the real issue is at WP:BLOCK, not here. I venture to guess that trying to apply the "legal policy" template there would not be supported.  As best I can tell, the "legal policy" template was applied when additional templates were created for different policy groupings, leaving this as the last policy with an "official policy" template.  Instead of discussing here which policy template would be most appropriate, or determining whether or not the "official policy" template should remain, the discussion was held at TfD, with little consideration for the effect of adding the word "legal" to this policy.  There was no local consensus to add the "legal" template. If anything, the "behavioural policy" template would be more appropriate here. Risker (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The label "with legal considerations" is incorrect. I forget when it was added, but this whole page is essentially a redundant essay describing a stance taken by the WMF and Arbcom, and which is supported by the community. The point is that anyone may be banned from using a website if the owner of the website does not want them—that is a much lower threshold than would be required for a legal consideration. No one should use Wikipedia for anything that might be defamation, so there are "legal considerations" for WP:TPG and many other pages, but there is no basis to use Legal policy on this or TPG (the template is used in connection with copyright and NLT, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Legal policy). Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom address
Since the entire contents of the Arbcom mailing list have twice been leaked, I don't think we can with a clear conscience advise people to use that address to send information that they would very likely wish to remain private (particularly the type of information we're concerned with on this page). I think it would make more sense to contact the Foundation directly, rather than go through our local en.wp Arbcom - but if it has to be Arbcom, then far better to write to just one Arb if you want to increase the chances of your private information remaining so.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any substantial changes to this page require WP:CONSENSUS. Please wait for other users to express a view on this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a point I would have a degree of sympathy with. Historically the current address given has been insecure. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mailing an individual ArbCom member would not necessarily solve the problem, as issues are discussed between members. Plus the obvious problem that the member could be on holiday, unwell etc when the issue needs an immediate reply. Possibly a separate e-mail address could be set up for this page only, but that would require discussion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll ask at Arbcom. But PLEASE stop restoring this address at this page until it's clear that it's secure - we have no idea what harm it might do someone.--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Matter raised at WT:Arbitration Committee.--Kotniski (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave the address alone. I have no idea why anyone would think emailing an individual arbitrator will obtain a better result; individual arbitrators do not have the authority to act at a Committee level. Where, exactly, do you think they will forward any emails intended for the committee as a whole? Risker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just said the same thing there, just longer. Kotniski, I understand your concern, but I think you'll have to leave it as it is.  We don't have a better alternative at the moment, perhaps we never will.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Individual ArbCom members have been known to ignore (or otherwise to act on) such messages. See my comment on the ArbCom talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And Arbcom as a group have been known to publish its correspondents' personal details to the world. But I understand that we are not allowed to say anything that might be interpreted as even slightly besmirching the name of our mighty and beloved Arbcom, however much we might harm innocent people in the process. Onward and upward! --Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When has ArbCom as a group published correspondents' personal details to the world?  Roger Davies  talk 09:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, correspondents' personal details sent to Arbcom were published to the world. Surely you can address the problem instead of the semantics?--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of them. Less than half of one percent of emails were published.
 * We have already taken such steps as we can with zero resources. Amongst other measures, implemented months ago, we made it significantly more difficult to access the archives.  Roger Davies  talk 10:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, but still, as you apparently admit, the danger has still not been eliminated (and there's no guarantee as to what percentage of e-mails, or which, the next hacker will publish or use). It may not be in any way Arbcom's fault that a significant risk still exists, but in so far as it does exist, what's the moral justification for deliberately not warning people about it? --Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't humanly possibly to eliminate altogether the danger of any unwanted disclosure. Once a confidence is shared, it becomes less secure. We see details of confidential emails/letters/memos disclosed in the press on a daily basis. So perhaps a generic warning that any communication of whatever nature is potentially insecure is appropriate :)  Roger Davies  talk 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a proposal of that sort (though without the smiley) at the Arbcom talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This online template has some suggestions on possible wording. I am not a big fan of disclaimers, but people contacting Wikipedia on this issue should be advised not to give personal information about themselves while making the report.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
Just thought I'd drop this link in for people who have to see it; I'm not sure why it hasn't yet been posted here (or has it)? meta:User_talk:Sue_Gardner. Would be interesting to hear comments as to how this would pertain to enwp. Russavia (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is This Being Discussed in Another Project Also?
Most of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and some of the discussion here, has to do with images being hosted on Commons, which I have not used, but I infer that some of the participants are saying is becoming a porn farm. Some of the comments here are to the effect that the problem is outside the scope of Wikipedia unless and until the images are loaded into Wikipedia articles, and therefore should not be discussed in Wikipedia. My question then is, is there an ongoing discussion of this issue in another project space, either in Meta or in Commons? Does Commons even have policy talk pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of. For the moment we are trying to fix Wikipedia policy.  Other projects might take a clue from us, but they have to manage themselves.  We may end up with a situation where certain images on commons are forbidden to be used on Wikipedia.  Jehochman Talk 20:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a consensus that images should not be on Wikipedia if they are child pornography. The issue appears to be how to define child pornography precisely.  As you say, other projects may take a clue from us, but they have to manage themselves.  Does Commons manage itself at all?  The images also should not be on Commons if they are child pornography, and part of the problem appears to be that Commons is becoming a porn farm.  (At least, that is how I interpret some of the comments.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's complete bollocks. There are maybe a couple of thousand sexuality images out of 17 million files. Heck, my uploads of train photos likely dwarfs the "porn" images. You are right, images that are "child pornography" should not be on Commons, and we encourage people to report such images if they find them. We on Commons do manage ourselves, and if the editors of Jimbo's talk page would like to contribute to policy discussions on Commons they may do so. They may even start discussions! But they shouldn't expect that the community will always agree with them, especially when they show no respect for other editors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that Commons was becoming a porn farm. I was saying that some of the comments implied that Commons was becoming a porn farm.  I haven't browsed Commons.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on the category you are browsing. Commons:Category:Pollination (NSFW for plants) has nothing pornographic about it as far as I can tell. Commons:Category:Penis (NSFW) has what you'd expect. Only a very small minority of commons has sexually explicit images and you'd have to be looking for them to find them. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons certainly does manage itself, and if it decided to do something illegal the office would override it. Yes there are people out there who claim that Commons is full of porn, and no not all of them are trolls. But there are enough critics of Commons who have overstated their case that there is also something of a counter reaction. I was at a meetup recently where someone repeated the "Commons is full of porn" mantra, and someone else then said "are you sure? I suspect we have more photos of the Eiffel Tower than we do of penises. Someone else then got out a laptop, did some queries and found that the Eiffel Tower was slightly better represented. My own preferred comparator is with stained glass windows, Commons has far more images of stained glass windows in English churches than it has images of porn (under almost any definition of porn). In fact it probably has more images of stained glass windows in Norfolk, England than it has porn. There have also been discussions on Meta about various possible image filters, but the problem, and I say this as the main author of One of the proposed filters, is that those who wanted a filter overstated their case and weren't prepared to collaborate with those members of the community who were prepared to have a filter providing it was implemented in a way that didn't put an undue burden on the existing community.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate to say Commons manages itself. They have done a lot of work to reduce their administrative backlogs, but they still have unclosed deletion discussions from March.  That's better than the 8-12 months it used to take to get something deleted on commons, but still 2 months is a hell of a backlog.  If AfD ever got that far behind here everyone would be in panic mode. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that isn't great, and perhaps we need to do some sort of recruitment drive. But having backlogs isn't in my view enough to say that it doesn't manage itself. I'm pretty sure there are enough active admins there that a genuinely urgent deletion would be done speedily if it was correctly tagged or an active admin was prodded. All the deletion requests that I’ve made in the last couple of years have been not particularly urgent so I'm not criticising Commons for some of them taking weeks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the person that setup the deletion system on commons. Before that they were dumped to one page as a massive list. Backlog back then was I think something like 4 months with cases going back to 6 or more months for those lengthy discussions. Commons had seen worse. The only discussions that take a long time are those where it is either an obvious attempt to censor commons or if the deletion request is canvassed. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A Terminological Point
I think that some of the comments being made here about pedophiles and pedophilia miss the point. The policy is about protection of legal children and not only of physiological children. A sexual relationship between a 32-year-old male and a 16-year-old female, or a 32-year-old female and a 16-year-old male, is an inappropriate adult-child relationship based on the law, although the 32-year-old is not a pedophile, because their attraction is to a person who is a legal child but a physiological adult. I suggest that we avoid references to pedophiles and pedophilia, except in the context of self-identified pedophiles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that similar terminological points have been made in the and  sections above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And in addition to my statements in those sections about terminology, I also stated (among other things) in the section: "...I point out that if the picture is of genitals, we cannot, by simply viewing the picture, definitively know if the person is over the age of 18. We cannot know because a 16-year-old guy, for example, may be post-pubescent (as most guys that age are) and therefore have genitals that resemble an adult's (because he is a complete biological adult)." Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for, similar to what PinkAmpersand stated in the Images section, if we see gray hair or other signs of old age regarding the genitals. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, the policy already does what you suggest, except for the following line: "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel." Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob, that's called ephebophilia. Kord Kakurios (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only ephebophilia if the adult has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group. Otherwise, any man who finds a mid or late adolescent sexually attractive, including an 18 or 19-year-old, would be an ephebophile. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to how the law defines it rather than come up with wording of our own. I frankly don't like the wording one bit. For instance: "Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue." No it doesn't! Do we want pedophiles on the site? My personal preference would be a solid NO. But my personal reasons would be insufficient. We should base it on legal reasons (International/Federal/State/County) not moral. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * とある白い猫/13 (A Certain White Cat), are you responding to Robert McClenon? Either way, it seems that you are stating that we should stick to how the law defines pedophilia. But I have to point out that, while law enforcement use the term pedophilia, the term pedophilia is not an official legal term. Child sexual abuse, often termed child molestation, or any of the terms for "adult-child sex" mentioned in the Statutory rape rape article are legal terms. What I mean is that the mental disorder pedophilia is not criminalized; it's the act of child sexual abuse/statutory rape that is. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, my point exactly? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; that's why I questioned your point above. But it seems that you are now stating that what I stated in response to you is basically what you mean -- how the law defines "adult-child sex." Robert McClenon's point was that the law is not consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child, and that not all of these instances relate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my point wasn't that the law is not consistent as to how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child. It is true that those laws vary between jurisdictions, but that was not my point.  My point was that there is a significant difference between two types of definitions of a child, the legal definition, which varies between jurisdictions, and the distinction between a physiological child and a physiological adult.  Therefore I took strong exception to the use of the term "pedophile" or "pedophilia", which refer to a psychological aberration, as having a major role in our child protection policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that's what you meant, Robert McClenon, which I feel is clear from some of my other comments in this section. That's what I was trying to get across when I mentioned the law not being "consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child, and that not all of these instances relate to pedophilia." Because "there is a significant difference between two types of definitions of a child," this is a reason that "the law is not consistent in how it defines sexual activity between an adult and a child." Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy at the moment doesn't attribute any law in any shape or form that I can see. In contrast see copyrights which is attributing the law. Laws & case law define what we should expect in court and we should tailor our content to comply with the law. If legally there is ambiguity, so should the policy. I also wish to see WMF legal remarks being attributed (in regards to age verification). If we go the moral route we will have different competing morals and that is not a route we should want to go. I am not just concered about the proposal above but what this may be a precedent for. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In other jurisdictions, a relationship between a 32-year-old and an 18-year-old that is fully legal in the US (afaik) is just as illegal as the 32-year-old/16-year-old relationship is in the US. In Angola (according to ) the age of consent is 12. For this reason it behoves us to be wary of cultural considerations when dealing with this issue. It could be argued that a Canadian endorsing their country's age of consent law (16) must be permablocked for advocating relationships that US law defines as inappropriate, even if they never mention this on-wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, it appears that you got point here. You can read a lot on the net about some girls in brazil aged 12-15 dating guys aged 18-25, they just think it's a good thing to have an older boyfriend, it's something rooted in the local culture apparently. They're just lucky the US FBI isn't recognized there or all of them would be in trouble, with policemen recording every conversation carried out by phone and on the net. Kord Kakurios (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And by the way, do you know that there's an easy trick to find out some users' ages? Kord Kakurios (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, but I would hope that attempting to discover the age of someone who has not publicly revealed it would be classed as WP:OUTING. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The message there is that the culturally respectful/sensitive response is to take the MOST conservative position, not the least. Likewise, the consequences of ignoring everyone's standards is to put the project in the position of advocacy that the standards are objectively to be discarded. It's that tell-tale word "endorse" that gives it all away: nobody needs to be endorsing anyone's standards, but it would simplify matters if standards were respected. Since they aren't, the effect is endorsement of no standards. That's hardly putting us in a position of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The message there is that the culturally respectful/sensitive response is to take the MOST conservative position" by which logic we should exclude all images of people from the project. Or if that is too conservative for you, then we should require evidence that people are married heterosexuals at least 21 years old. The problem with this proposal is that it seeks to interpret subjective standards objectively, and regardless of what the standards are that is always going to result in drama when two people have different interpretations. Things like edit warring work because they are subjective standards interpreted subjectively with resulting punishment equally subjectively applied. Things like 1RR restrictions on named articles work because they are objective standards interpreted objectively. Because of the difficulty in defining pretty much every key term in the area of child protection, the standards need to be subjective and applied subjectively. Nobody needs to endorse anyone's standards on Wikipedia, however people do. This policy also applies to statements and actions off-wiki where many more people endorse various people's standards - and sometimes it is necessary to. What this proposal does is to treat all endorsements of anything less conservative than US law (regardless of what is endorsed, where it is endorsed or why it is endorsed) as equally to advocating adults engaging in violent penetrative sexual intercourse with babies. Subjectively it is easy to see that such activities are very different to advocating for the acceptance of consensual non-penetrative sexual activities between an 18-year-old and someone one month their junior, however objectively both are prohibited by the letter of the same US law. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There exists interpretations of Sharia law to ban images and art of any kind all-together in the name of decency and/or religion. Even then I am sure I can find even a more conservative position than that. There are people who practically want to ban education for being an "evil instrument of heretics" and demand only scripture be taught its place. This site has operated fine to date for over a decade without moral standards, what is prompting a change? Also moral standards is an oxymoron. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then ignore moral standards and just delete all the self-produced porn. Not on any moral basis, but on the basis that we aren't a free web host, and we don't need these images.  For example, we have 65+ images in the "ejaculating penis" category, and 35 more "penis in condom" on commons, and most of them aren't used on any Wikipedia, anywhere.  We need very few of these images for our articles, and "ejactulating penis number 65" isn't adding any encyclopedic value that "ejaculating penis number 64" doesn't add. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only is that completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, it is also not entirely correct. We need more than one image of an ejaculating penis - different stages of ejaculation, different sizes, skin tones/ethnicities, different viewing angle, different situations (e.g. there is potential use for the contrasting of a medical image and a couple of different pornographic images in an article or book about pornography), with labels in different languages, etc. You also need to remember that Commons hosts images for all Wikimedia projects which includes projects other than encyclopaedias and just because an image is not encyclopaedic does not mean that it is not educational. I haven't looked at the 65 images on Commons to see whether all are useful, but if you see any there that you think aren't then nominate them for deletion over there with reference to their policies. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we needed them, they'd be used somewhere. They aren't, and never will be. Gigs (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be true if all the projects were finished. The aren't, and saying they never will be is a pure crystal ball statement - for example File:Bombs print.jpg was uploaded in 2008 and remained entirely unused until I created a derivative version last month to illustrate the Motion lines article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, there are only 31 images in Commons:Category:Penises in condoms, and that is only two more than Commons:Category:Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa category seems to be a lot more excessive than the "penises in condoms" category. The penis images do at least look a bit different, whereas the Mona Lisa ones are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gigs, how do you know they aren't used? Have you considered offline uses or people browsing commons? Commons does not exclusively serve en.wikipedia. It is a free image repository. By very definition it will have multiple files on each topic. That is the project goal. Also why is this discussed here on Child protection? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure they are used for... "non-educational purposes", quite often. It's being discussed here because there's been a directive to formulate a policy regarding age verification of the subjects of the low-quality amateur porn that commons seems to love.  I suspect that if people keep arguing that "we need all the basement porn for... eh.. education", then a much more draconian directive will eventually result from the foundation's frustration with the matter.  Gigs (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a perfectly fine usage actually. Someone can even start a for-profit low-quality amateur porn website using content from commons. Content on commons does not have to be strictly used with an educational purpose.
 * I work with artificial intelligence. Images such as pictures of genitalia or nude human bodies can be a useful learning set for medical research as there are variations from person to person. Such technology can allow early/automated identification of diseases, improve detection on scanners such as the ones on airports, parental control to keep kids away from internet porn as well as many other applications. This too is the purpose of commons.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've long realized that deletionism is first and foremost a failure of imagination, but not even I actually realized that someone with the TSA would really have a genuine need to sample the variation of human penises in order to better model the organ to detect the next testicle bomb. What is rather disturbing about that is that it implies that, however cartoonish its public output, the TSA scanner needs to recognize, know, and record to a permanent government database your precise penis size, shape, and characteristics... but I digress. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was intended to be example uses of having so many photos on nudity etc to illustrate other uses as you need to have a variety in your data for your learning algorithm to work. This is mostly independent of your intended goal of detecting cancer, gun, bomb, etc... I do not believe TSA is using commons though, they have their own scanners for that! :p -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * What you seem to be suggesting is that Notcensored should be mentioned on the page. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, because Notcensored already is mentioned on the page, in the "See also" section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * True, I'm suggesting making the point of Notcensored more clear regarding imagery that may be considered upsetting. That would further clarify to some objectors that, while Wikimedia may protect against predators, it will not protect against unpleasant things in the real world. As I said, it would be a clarification of policy that reinforces itself in two policies that can be referenced, as twice I've viewed objections to "upsetting imagery" on Featured Articles from both parents and minor children.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Overkill definition of "personal information"
Seriously, Bielle? This is ridiculous.

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

While we're on the topic, I think the text BB added should be more nuanced when it comes to names and email addresses. If I tell you that my name's Tom Kelly and my email address is pinkampersand.wikimedia@undefinedgmail.com, there's essentially no way you can track me down based on that. So, I'd propose something like Avoid giving anyone: When in doubt about how much information is too much, err on the side of caution.
 * Your address, or an overly specific description of where you live
 * Your phone number
 * Any email address that is associated with you in real life. Many Wikipedians choose to make a Wikipedia-only address, or a general-purpose address for online activities.
 * Your name, if it's uncommon enough that you could be identified through it. (So, if your name's "John Schmidt", you can say that. If your name's "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt", you might want to leave out your middle names, and if your name's "Jingleheimer Schmidt", you probably want to avoid giving any name at all.)

If I were a new editor and I were to see a policy this broadly-worded, I'd assume it was some formality that I could ignore. By making unreasonable and unnecessary demands, we risk putting naïve young editors in greater danger, not less. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For some reason I don't understand, you are playing "silly buggers" with what was very straightforward text. I don't know why you think dilutions are advisable. I don't agree with your final sentence at all. This page is (and always has been) highly contentious. You should be looking to an RfC if you want to make changes. Bielle (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, ( Je vous invite à me parler ), try saying that after living in Saudi Arabia and making an edit critical of the King or of Islam. I can pick similar examples all over the world. Secret Police would be examining entries, do their level best to acquire IP information and tie it to the individual editing. That said, I'd add area/region and country to the sentence, just to make it clear to a young reader the hazards of revealing PII. I suggest you overreact and fail to consider all possible hazards that can befall a naive young person on the internet, which is a part of the big, wide and all too frequently nasty real world.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You did read the thing I wrote about how that text had been in the article for less than a day when I removed it, right? And about how there had been no consensus to include it? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read the thing de novo, based from your diff, then from subsequent diffs. That is the basis for my comments, the earliest portion being prior to reading, but general input, the latter part after reading both the diff you provided and subsequent reading. I'm not an idiot, I only play one for my own advantage on being underestimated. I haven't played that part here, so kindly consider that I'm smarter than the average bread box. wink Wzrd1 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Bielle. Your comment is a more nuanced one, and one I'll respond to when I have the energy. Sorry for any misunderstanding. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed text by PinkAmpersand is too long winded. The point that the text should make is that Age/sex/location should not be given online.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What I initially inserted was supposed to be a very basic advisory to minors using Wikipedia. The basic guideline that my parents and every school I've been in has told me: Never give out your personal information to anyone[, except if you have met them face-to-face beforehand]. Personal information includes your [x/y/z]. It wasn't supposed to be specific, just give the general idea of what actions could be dangerous in everyday life. I felt the need to give a loose definition of what constitutes 'personal information' because many people (children) I have met think that they can't be traced or identified by things like their surname, email address, phone number, and area of residence; in combination with each other or other scraps of info collected passively and correlated by someone determined to find them.
 * If no consensus can be reached quickly regarding this tiny detail, I suggest we just remove it and get on with our lives. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the list and just added "identifying" to personal information as I think that is the fundamental concern and added an extra bit of language to cover our bases should someone be unsure as to what is meant.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording in this edit is too vague to give specific advice. The wording needs to give some idea of what should not be given out.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ask.fm has a well written set of safety tips here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Yea, sure they are. I'm not an admin that can push the ban button myself, but I'd work strenuously to see that an editor who advocated such views was removed from the project. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue has led to problems with WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTAFORUM in the past, when editors attempted to employ user and talk pages to promote their views in this area repeatedly, rather than adding reliably sourced material aimed at improving articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But why ban off-wiki expression of such views? As the policy currently stands, if anybody finds a statement anywhere on the Internet (or outside of it) that has something to do with child sexual abuse, pedophilia, age of consent, etc., and that statement questions current social and scientific views on the topic, and the person who posted it is also believed to have a Wikipedia account, that person can be blocked for that even though they have not disrupted Wikipedia in any way, perhaps not even edited on the any of these topics. If an academic found out surprising things on the topic that contradict current views, and published them, should that academic be blocked from Wikipedia? What about people who then write about that academic's views on Wikipedia, while trying to be neutral (see e.g. Rind et al. controversy, or - should "Rind et al." be blocked from Wikipedia, or should that Guardian reporter be blocked, or any of the researchers he cites, or any of the people commenting there?)?
 * Basically, this policy, or so I read it, is Wikipedia trying to discourage people from exercising their right to free speech, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is obviously not a forum, or a venue for advocacy/POV-pushing of any kind, or an experiment in unregulated free speech, but the outside world is supposed to be exactly that. Of course Wikipedia can block anybody for any or no reason whatsoever, but that doesn't mean it should do so, because that may have a chilling effect on the process of advancing research in that area (remember that absolutely everything should be doubted if one wants to achieve scientific progress) if people need to fear being blocked if they express their views, or question current mainstream views, on the amount and extent of harm done by child sexual abuse, in real life (off-wiki). Also, it seems very unusual that simple expression of certain views is considered to be advocacy in this policy. I also disagree with some other parts of this policy, but this thoughtcrime part is so horrible (and would be equally horrible if it concerned any other topic than pedophilia - I don't have particularly strong feelings about pedophilia in particular, just for avoidance of misunderstandings) that I don't even want to participate much in the English-language Wikipedia - creating chilling effects on controversial research is the opposite of neutrality. darkweasel94 (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * People expressing pro-paedophilia views, or self identifying as having paedophile tendencies getting banned from editing the site, is not as troublesome as knowing that such people are editing the site. If they want to edit a wiki there are other wikis elsewhere. John lilburne (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a time before this policy existed. It was a disaster.  Not just in a PR sort of way like you are asserting, but internally for the editing community (see WP:RANDY).  There was an organized, concerted effort to use wikipedia for pro-pedo advocacy, and actual convicted criminals and fugitives from justice were getting in on the action, leaving the administration no choice.  Policies to keep in mind as well are WP:FRINGE.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, there is a question of when something constitutes advocacy and when it simply constitutes a legitimate evaluation of existing research, or perhaps a mistaken understanding of sexuality. Whether a sexual relationship between an adult and a child causes harm is not some black or white issue. A person does not have to believe something is actually harmful to believe it is immoral or should be illegal. Not all attempted murders are "harmful" as they never proceed to a point where harm is possible, but no one would seriously suggest expressing that view is the same as advocating attempted murder. A person can likewise believe not all adult-child sexual relationships are harmful, yet still view them as immoral and warranting legal action.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 15:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Whether a sexual relationship between an adult and a child causes harm is not some black or white issue." ? Oh really? Tarc (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes really. There are degrees to everything and many legitimate researchers would allow that some relationships may not cause any discernible harm as darkweasel noted, with the extent of discernible harm ranging from severe to light. As I said, that does not amount to saying any of those relationships are moral or should be legal. Equating such a position with advocacy and making it a ban-worthy offense is nonsensical.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They haven't indef banned Erik Moeller so I guess that one can detect some degree of subtlety in the policy. John lilburne (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I asked these questions I was hoping for a link to a justification or explanation and answer to my questions, not a debate.
 * John, is there any reason that "reasoning" wouldn't also apply to any other hated group with like communists? (you aren't wanting a ban on them solely editing pedophilia topics or a ban on using the user emailing feature, but a blanket editing ban) Ian, as darkweasel94 points out, that reasoning would apply to any advocacy (and should thus be banned under a general anti-advocacy policy) and does not apply to the portion saying that off-site advocacy or identification results in a banning. darkweasel94 brings up an interesting point, is Bruce Rind blocked at this time? Should he be?
 * It is more or less certain that there are chilling effects at work in our society preventing discussion, questioning and research on this topic, despite it being far from a settled question (there have been a few societies with adult-child sexual interaction and the research is far from conclusive either way). I am dismayed to find that this is a policy with some support here rather than an attempt to cover against possible media attacks. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Legitimus, or somebody else who agrees with that position: Can you explain why, to minimize disruption to Wikipedia, it is a necessary or useful measure to block people for expressing, or even advocating for, certain views outside of Wikipedia? Have there been no similar campaigns of POV-pushing for other fringe points of view? If there have been, why is there not a ban against expressing those off-wiki? darkweasel94 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure but I must emphasize that I did not make this policy nor advocate for the provisions it contains (I was never an admin). I cannot claim to understand why off-wiki behavior was included, though I can understand why it is at least weighed as evidence when a user us behaving in a disruptive manner.  I know of one instance where there was a user that was well known in the online pedophile community and there was easily locatable evidence (including matching photographs of his face), but generally refrained from advocacy on Wikipedia.   However, he frequently would engage in weasel-lish commenting or edits on topics related to sex with children, but would artfully tip-toe around saying anything overt.  I had mixed feelings about his blocking, because he was a good editor in unrelated topics, but also was on record off-wiki as saying he preferred 8 year old girls.  I will say that from a PR perspective, WP was already under fire in the media for being a haven for pedophiles, and so this may have been part of an effort to restore faith.
 * There are certainly other fringe views/movements that have been banned from wikipedia after repeated problems with misbehavior, notably this one: Legitimus (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking actual (suspected or self-identified) pedophiles is a different matter - I have an opinion on that too but now I think we're talking mainly about blocking people who simply express opinions off-wiki but don't claim to be pedophiles themselves. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never once seen a block instituted where the user only expressed opinions, in no way identified themselves as a pedophile, and had zero on-wiki bad behavior. And I say that as someone who's been monitoring this topic for 7 years.  I even interacted with a user who many strongly believe was Bruce Ring himself; he was only blocked after months of being a massive blowhard and promoting his paper in underhanded ways.Legitimus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that horrible part isn't actually enforced, then why even have it? This is about as bad as enforcing it, because then it creates unjustified fears of expressing opinions on the topic. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't add that part (or any other part) nor do I have any authority over this policy, so can't really answer. All I can do is report observations and speculate.  A quick check of this talk's archive will show versions of this same conversation over and over.  It's repeatedly brought up by users that, let's face it, are pedos who are pissed they can't push their agenda, free-speech nuts who are afraid of unintended consequences that never actually happen, and the former posing as the latter.Legitimus (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that you didn't make this policy - it was a general question and I didn't expect you in particular to answer. :) I'm happy to be a "free-speech nut" applying Murphy's law. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What of Contrarians? And the strict skeptics who think wikipedia should not act as if the facts regarding the whole adult-child sexual interaction thing have been settled (hence NPOV)?
 * Regardless, no one was able to give a quick answer to my questions. Nor has any link to a justification been given. From this it should be obvious both that the Child Protection page is unclear, needing rigor and clarification, and that the policy is not adequately justified or thought out. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Legitimus, that is the blocking of an institution rather than a sexual orientation or anyone holding particular beliefs. Was the ban on any editing or just editing related to subjects of interest to the Church of Scientology? 86.26.236.107 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:ARBSCI - all Scientology IPs were blocked. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This policy was written because for years the community was disrupted by on site discussions about whether someone should be banned for advocating adult-child sexual relationships. It was not uncommon for an editor to let it be known that they were participating in this type of advocacy website, and this would cause disruption on Wikipedia. Additionally, this type if on site discussion about another member of the community is not condoned because for the most part the only editors who didn't mind it were the people who welcomed the opportunity to bring the discussion to Wikipedia because they were advocates. So, while it may see like it is attempting to be thought police, the policy was written to resolve a long standing problem dealing with advocates who were looking for a forum to promote their pov. A point of view that causes serious disruption in the community when the topic is raised about another editor. Sydney Poore/ FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that some of the claims being made about Wikipedia here are overwrought. From past discussions about this policy I know that, due to a prolonged and active effort by Perverted Justice to track down Wikipedia editor identities around the Internet, some people who were POV-pushing for pedophilia were called out and blocked, but so far as I know there was never any overarching conspiracy guiding all their actions. I know some wag started a pedophile userbox, though as far as I can remember that was originally trolling until one person was found using it. I wouldn't call the discussions over these things a massive disruption of the community, but merely issues the community considered, and did not on its own find need for a special policy about. (POV-pushing is not looked on kindly for anything)

The policy does not actually prohibit people from expressing their support for the repeal of obscenity laws; certainly I have done so in the past far more unambiguously than Moeller. To illustrate: I think anyone who supports marijuana legalization should understand the biggest reason, the $4 billion market rewarding the manufacture of child porn; but cases like Mike Diana, systematic censorship and the prohibition of Internet privacy are distressing to purists. We're telling the victims of child porn manufacture that what happened to them is horrible, but if they try to show anyone we'll put them in jail. Fortunately I see no language in this policy to prohibit us from saying this.

The strangest thing is that the more powerful people seem totally unwilling to allow the discussion of allegations against specific editors on Wikipedia ... nor to actually prohibit it. originated this policy, yet right on his talk page there's yet another case where some banned editor is raising a claim against an editor that seems to imply pedophilia yet nobody does anything to revdelete it; in the past I've sometimes seen these things 'hatted' but so far they haven't even done that. I would worry here about "false light" claims - if WMF ends up defending a libel action, I'd far rather it be for Wikipedians being Wikipedians and honestly and abrasively arguing over a case rather than for a banned editor going unchallenged. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Inappropriate relationships" and "vague" tag
Re this edit: "inappropriate adult–child relationships" is vague, and the problem is that Wikipedia is read all over the world and the age of consent varies from country to country, eg it is between 13 and 18 in Europe. This has been discussed before, and the purpose of the policy is not to give specific legal advice. Some types of sexual relationship between adults and children are illegal in virtually all countries. Suggestions on how to deal with the "vague" tag are welcome.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the "vague" tag that Jarble added to the "inappropriate relationships" wording is not necessarily needed; I state that because I think what is meant by "inappropriate relationships" is clear from the context of the child protection policy. Furthermore, the "inappropriate adult–child relationships" wording comes before the "inappropriate relationships" wording, so, if we are to improve the language, the former wording that you pointed out is also the target. Anyway, what is meant by "inappropriate" is "sexual"; so we can use "sexual" in its place. Yes, yes, there is the age of consent and/or age of majority matter, but adult editors who have, for example, expressed a sexual interest in early pubescents and/or advocated for adult sexual interest in early pubescents, have been indefinitely blocked and/or banned by WP:ArbCom; WP:ArbCom did not, and does not, care to ask what the age of consent is in the countries those editors reside in. And I assume this is because age 18 is the legal adult age in the vast majority of the world, while every person below that age is generally legally a child, and it's very likely that the minor is below the age of consent. Not to mention that it was often the case that editors did not specify the age of their sexual interest; all WP:ArbCom knew was that the sexual interest included prepubescents (an age range which is almost always protected by age of consent laws or some other law) and/or some other underage range. If it's important to editors of the Child protection page to add something about age of consent, we can do that, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding this revert of Jarble by Johnuniq, I'm simply noting on this talk page that, as seen here and here, Jarble was the one who added the link to the Age disparity in sexual relationships article in September 2013; I noticed the addition then, and waited to see if anyone would object; when they didn't, I didn't. In May 2014, as seen here, Jarble became conflicted about the link. And, of course, as shown by Ianmacm's post above, he very recently became conflicted about the link. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look but did not want to take the time to sort out all the adjustments. I did think the link was pretty odd, but at least it was vaguely on track. If someone would care to work out how far back to revert, while keeping any good edits, that would be fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at this, it appears it really is confusing. Despite what  said, the map from age of consent displays an age of 18 only for a few U.S. states, India, and parts of Africa.  (I should note that looking at the changes the map has undergone in the past few years, either governments of the world have been passing laws on this frantically or else the original map was not accurate)  I think some people could live with cultural imperialism on the point, and just tell the people in Yemen and such places that their laws and religion are wrong; but I think this is more bureaucratic imperialism, i.e. that ArbCom wants to reserve the power to decide who is a bad person and get rid of them without tipping their hand by providing a published definition of what the rules are, or indeed, even needing to go by any consistent rules.  So for example, if someone wants to find out if they go by the same standard when a male or a female editor is concerned, a heterosexual or a homosexual, a traditional Muslim being wed or an American dating, I would hazard a guess that the correct answer is a magic 8-ball stocked with phrases like "use common sense", "it's on a case by case basis", "we don't talk about it", and "what do you think?"  Now it is true that this is only ever thought out in a few cases, but the way Wikipedia handles a variety of situations like this prevent me from recommending its governance structure as an example to others, e.g. here. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The age of consent is only part of the problem. There is an old adage of "half-your-age-plus-seven" for sexual relationships, and it is men (and sometimes women) looking for relationships well outside this range who are often described as "inappropriate", even if the child was technically over the age of consent. The age of consent in the UK is 16, which IMHO is broadly OK. The problem with lowering it is that it would delight all of the Jimmy Savile types who are persistently looking for sexual relationships with 13 or 14-year-olds. This is one of the most common forms of sexual offence.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to assume that the policy about child protection isn't going to be used to justify banning someone who insists it's appropriate for a wealthy 80-year-old to take up with a 23-year-old, whatever people think of the idea. For that matter, I would hope that any editor who discloses that he is in a legal sexual relationship with someone much younger would not be banned - at least, if he lives in the U.S.  (if he lives in Sudan and has a child bride, all bets are off) Wnt (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wnt, I stated, "age 18 is the legal adult age in the vast majority of the world." That is true. If you don't trust the Age of majority article on that, there are plenty of WP:Reliable sources on the matter showing it to be the case. You confused "age of consent" with "age of majority." As for the rest of what you stated, I'm not interested in debating it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So if, say, a 23-year-old editor in the U.S. has somehow gotten involved with a 17-year-old, in accordance with the laws of his or her state, potentially even being married in accordance with the laws of that state, he or she can be banned if she admits this fact here? (I know - he should consult the magic 8-ball) Wnt (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This policy does not have numerical ages, and nor is it likely to, as we could cite different laws all day long. The issue is whether "inappropriate adult–child relationships" is vague and how to reword it so that it is not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * [ WP:Edit conflict ]: No, Wnt. That is quite different than what the policy is about, and I'm sure that you know it. Like the policy states: "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely." WP:ArbCom has indefinitely blocked and/or banned editors stating that there is nothing wrong with an adult engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent child (and, knowing how such editors continually tried to skew pedophilia, child sexual abuse and age of consent topics, you aren't going to convince me that such blocks and/or bans were not good blocks and/or bans). I hate stating "engaging in sexual activity with" when it concerns prepubescents anyway, since I view it as child sexual abuse, plain and simple. WP:ArbCom has indefinitely blocked and/or banned editors who stated that they are pedophiles, including the ones editing articles to include their pro-pedophilia twist. WP:ArbCom has indefinitely blocked and/or banned editors expressing a sexual interest in early pubescents and/or advocating such an interaction; clearly, there are many parts of the world where engaging in sexual activity with early pubescents is illegal; there is also plenty of research into what extent such interaction psychologically damages the early pubescent in question. So again, you are not going to convince me that such blocks and/or bans are inappropriate, especially given the POV-pushing of these editors as well. If these editors want to edit Wikipedia without being indefinitely blocked and/or banned, then they should not be revealing that particular sexual interest on Wikipedia or editing Wikipedia articles concerning such topics. I am not aware of WP:ArbCom indefinitely blocking and/or banning an adult who expressed a sexual interest in a 17-year-old, which is not much different than an 18-year-old; that's why I stated above "Not to mention that it was often the case that editors did not specify the age of their sexual interest; all WP:ArbCom knew was that the sexual interest included prepubescents (an age range which is almost always protected by age of consent laws or some other law) and/or some other underage range." But if a person who expressed (on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia's knowledge off Wikipedia) a sexual interest in a 17-year-old were to use Wikipedia to pursue such a relationship or advocate for age of consent reform because of it, that person should keep in mind the possibility of WP:ArbCom indefinitely blocking and/or banning him or her.


 * And if you didn't confuse "age of majority" and "age of consent" above regarding my earlier reply, and you were referring to my "it's very likely that the minor is below the age of consent" wording... Well, given that the age of consent is often not below age 16, it is very likely that the minor is under the age of consent. But either way, I won't be debating the WP:Child protection matter with you today and maybe not in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You make it sound as if you have a working policy... but the incident that brought me here to my initial comment above illustrates more what you have. A banned editor comes on Jimbo Wales' talk page, says that one of our editors was indef banned by Arbcom after allegedly being caught talking about sex with a young girl (I am not entirely clear even on what is alleged).  Three years after, to be precise.  There's this sense from these people that ArbCom doesn't act until they make a huge public fuss about an incident, even though this policy says not to discuss it at all here.  On the other hand, in this incident, the "investigation" was some random Wikia editor playing undercover sting agent and posting screencaps of his conversation, which is not exactly a forensic chain of custody.  And then the final public face of the discussion is a banned editor making this terrible allegation against an editor, who has no right to respond, nor do we as editors have the right to dig into the situation and get a crowdsourced verdict on what we think of it; despite this policy claiming things like this are revdeled it was actually archived, even after I pointed out the violation, in a widely-read forum.  So it seems like every aspect of this policy - the standard you set, its enforcement, the protections to the accused, are all random.  And this kind of foot-dragging about providing better clarity even on a simple tangible criterion may have something to do with why it's so random. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Last reply: I know what brought you here to this policy talk page; I remember. And this policy has been working fine for several years; got a lot of pedophiles and other adult-child sex advocates off Wikipedia, and now there is barely a problem with pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse pushing at articles about or relating to pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. When I see such editors, I report them to WP:ArbCom if they are a threat to a Wikipedia article and/or are going on and on in their belief about how child sexual abuse is not harmful to children and/or isn't truly abuse. That is, if someone else does not report them first. And that is that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I removed the link that Jarble added, and replaced "inappropriate" with "sexual"; seen here. I thought about adding "romantic or sexual," but I figured that since "romantic" may be the view of the person pursuing the relationship with the child or minor, but not the view of many Wikipedians, I left "romantic" out; the policy is mostly focused on the sexual aspect anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Age disparity in sexual relationships link was not a good link to use because that article is not focused on adults with prepubescent children, a main aspect of what the WP:Child protection policy is about (since it also concerns pedophiles). Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alison, regarding this revert, how is the vague "inappropriate" wording "just fine," given what has been stated above in this section? How does that get across the point of this policy? I don't see what "inappropriate" can mean if it does not mean "sexual" in this case, or why we should stick to "inappropriate" to get across that we might mean something broader instead of specifying what that "broader" context is. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's precedent for Flyer22's suggested wording. The Rind resolution stated that "Congress . . . condemns and denounces all suggestions . . . that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for `willing' children . . . vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent; . . . urges the President likewise to reject and condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law . . ." Dnir Ecurb (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ^^^ This is banned editor, -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and advice about this issue
The following is copied, and edited information from User talk:Sue Gardner (at the bottom of the linked section).

Per this page's edit notice, I am posting this here, rather than boldly to the project page. Is this appropriate for adding to the project page? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the terms of use are not relevant to this policy which is merely a description of the fact that anyone thought to be engaging in certain behavior is removed from the project. There is no wiggle room that permits particular forms of behavior which might not be prohibited by the ToU. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't support adding this. It is in rather legalistic and long winded jargon, which goes against the normal practice of explaining policies and guidelines in plain language. The policy of Wikipedia:Child protection is intended to prevent users from misusing articles and talk pages to further their own agendas. The text above is not strictly relevant to this policy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

better explination of former statement.
What does the article mean by "editors who identify as pedophiles will be blocked indefinitely? Maybe the article could be given more of an in-depth and thorough explanation of what this statement means. Does anyone agree? I don't mean to cause any problems. Frogger48 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Frogger48, with the way you've gone on and on about how Wikipedia discriminates against pedophiles, how can you not know what it means? It means that the moment you identify as a pedophile on Wikipedia, you should expect to be indefinitely blocked from this site. I would state that the policy applies to "off Wikipedia" matters as well, as it has times before, but, after recently alerting the WP:WMF to a Wikipedia editor who identified as a pedophile off Wikipedia and made a pro-pedophile comment on Wikipedia years ago under a similarly named account, and recently tried to hide that comment (as if getting older eliminates pedophilic feelings), that editor is still currently editing Wikipedia. I alerted the WP:WMF because they have taken over for WP:ArbCom on such matters. I comment more about pedophiles and the WP:WMF on my user page. Although indefinitely means "for an unlimited or unspecified period of time" or "to an unlimited or unspecified degree or extent," it means "forever" in the case of pedophiles. Well, I suppose unless they are the Virtuous Pedophile kind. After all, the Virtuous Pedophiles article has been edited by pedophiles from that site...in addition to non-pedophiles.


 * On a side note: Remember to keep in mind that you have been warned about the pedophile angle you keep going on about. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Back in 2006, there was a long running saga over the creation of a userbox which said "this user is a pedophile" or similar. Since then, any attempt to add this type of content to user pages or talk pages will result in a block on the grounds that it leads to non-productive arguments. This policy is intended to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, rather than to be a detailed debate about what pedophilia actually is.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Flyer: Thanks for that last link which reminds me why I recognize the user name. I suggest proposing that Frogger48 be indeffed if there are any further comments like the above. This is not a forum to debate what simple statements mean, or whether those statements are justified. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "unless they are the Virtuous Pedophile kind" - Wrong again Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.121.105 (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)