Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who they are or what they believe"?
Steve
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who they are or what they believe"?
Steve
I've been saying this all along. It's simply not allowed by policy to block someone for who they are instead of their wiki actions.
Mgm
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are?
Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and has its reputation pretty much intact. What about the guy who arrives in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove all your bias on candidates' pages"?
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are?
Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and has its reputation pretty much intact. What about the guy who arrives in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove all your bias on candidates' pages"?
If he does it according to *our* concept of bias, then huzzah.
Anyway, unless the person supplies real name and funding details, the statement isn't verifiable and doesn't need to be taken that seriously. Does everybody automatically believe everything they read on user pages or something?
Stan
"Stan Shebs" wrote
Does everybody automatically believe everything they read on user pages or something?
I don't. We could easily get to a point where there was enough public attention, and enough swirling rumours, that the content of user pages was an issue, credible to old WP-hands or not. I suppose the optimists will point out that it could well have happened already, but has not.
Charles
On 2/7/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are?
Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and has its reputation pretty much intact. What about the guy who arrives in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove all your bias on candidates' pages"?
Charles
Let them edit for a few day intill AGF has been exusted and them block them for dissruption. Or do what we did with newsmax (revert repeatedly untill they give up).
-- geni
charles matthews wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are?
Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and has its reputation pretty much intact. What about the guy who arrives in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove all your bias on candidates' pages"?
I don't see why that would require preemptive banning. If he makes problematic edits, they can be reverted; if he starts ignoring usual community standards, e.g. by refusal to discuss on talk pages or excessive reverts, he can be banned.
There are cases where preemptive banning makes some sense, mainly obvious reincarnations of banned users and malicious bot-created accounts. In the latter, this is mainly because the potential damage a botnet can inflict in a short amount of time is quite large, so waiting around and cleaning up afterwards is an unappealing option.
In a case like the one you described, though, the potential damage to Wikipedia's reputation from being too ban-happy far outweighs the relatively minor inconvenience of waiting a bit to see if banning is really necessary. The clean-up there would consist of reverting a handful of pages.
-Mark
charles matthews wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are?
Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and has its reputation pretty much intact.
And I think this gets to the crux of the matter. I don't care who anyone is, but I do care about actions and statements which may bring Wikipedia into disrepute in any of a variety of ways. We have always been united in the community on two principles which are somewhat in tension:
1. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service, your userpage is not your own infinite free-speech zone where you can pontificate about anything, no matter how bad it makes Wikipedia look.
2. Wikipedia is a diverse community with extensive tolerance for what people put on their userpages. We try to get people to change with reason and kindness rather than hardcore measures, whenever we can.
Now, achieving balance between these two is a difficult matter. But I think that people who self-identify as pedophiles (with a userbox or otherwise) could bring Wikipedia into serious disrepute, and I have a real problem with that disruption.
What about the guy who arrives in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove all your bias on candidates' >pages"?
And what about the guy who says "I am a Nazi Party member, and I am here to make sure that the POV that Jews are evil is properly represented in the encyclopedia"... or the guy who says "I am a pedophile, and I edit articles related to pedophilia to make sure that the articles show how healthy it is."
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
- Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service, your userpage
is not your own infinite free-speech zone where you can pontificate about anything, no matter how bad it makes Wikipedia look.
- Wikipedia is a diverse community with extensive tolerance
for what people put on their userpages. We try to get people to change with reason and kindness rather than hardcore measures, whenever we can.
I like the analogy with a worker's cubicle. A certain amount of self-expression is accepted. Family photographs, movie posters etc. But displaying gatefolds from Penthouse or extreme political messages is generally discouraged, sometimes to the extent of dismissal.
Now, achieving balance between these two is a difficult matter. But I think that people who self-identify as pedophiles (with a userbox or otherwise) could bring Wikipedia into serious disrepute, and I have a real problem with that disruption.
The editor self-identifies as a sixteen year old boy. A quiet word rather than a whack over the earhole might be more appropriate.
Looking at the history of [[NAMBLA]] it is clear that there are edits from several points of view. Whether or not any of these edits were made by self-identified paedophiles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that some of them were made by people with a deep and personal interest.
How do we maintain NPOV and avoid charges that we are a haven for paedophiles, neo-Nazis and supporters of terrorism?
Peter (Skyring)
Jimmy Wales wrote
And what about the guy who says "I am a Nazi Party member, and I am here to make sure that the POV that Jews are evil is properly represented in the encyclopedia"... or the guy who says "I am a pedophile, and I edit articles related to pedophilia to make sure that the articles show how healthy it is."
I find it pretty interesting that these hypotheticals all seem to have a common 'structure', although of course some are more emotive than others.
Wikipedian: WP works because of positive feedback: people edit, they get a rep here for being NPOV or POV, WP gets a rep because NPOV editors do credit to it, more people come.
Outsider/Lobbyist: You know, that looks hard to do. I can improve your reputation for 'balance', today, by coming to your site and being an advocate.
Charles
Here's a test case. As per [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] a user proposes inserting a quote regarding extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet#Proposed_inclusion The author is qualified in *The Military Law Review *as the foremost expert in extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&oldid=2899231... The NLG good 'ol boy network determines cutting & pasting the discussion to a user page warrants a one year ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
nobs
On 2/7/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a diverse community with extensive tolerance for what people put on their userpages.
I don't care who anyone is, but I do care about actions and statements which may bring Wikipedia into disrepute
Serious personal attacks may result in lengthy bans.
Fred
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Rob Smith wrote:
Here's a test case. As per [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] a user proposes inserting a quote regarding extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet#Proposed_inclusion The author is qualified in *The Military Law Review *as the foremost expert in extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&oldid=28992316#WP:CON The NLG good 'ol boy network determines cutting & pasting the discussion to a user page warrants a one year ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=29531355
nobs
On 2/7/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a diverse community with extensive tolerance for what people put on their userpages.
I don't care who anyone is, but I do care about actions and statements which may bring Wikipedia into disrepute
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak.
Why not take away 3RR citing the argument that "Eventually we won't be allowed to edit. It is a slippery slope"? Or NPA on the basis that it infringes free speech?
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who they are or what they believe"?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
On 2/7/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak.
The problem is that the step from "admitted pedophiles" to "pedophiles" has already been taken, and from there, it's a *very* small step to "accused pedophiles", an illustrious group that includes Ta bu shi da yu, Schissel, and Lucky 6.9, all named by "Parents for the Online Safety of Children", Jtdirl, Gmaxwell, and me, all named by Jeff Merkey, and no doubt others.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 2/7/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak.
The problem is that the step from "admitted pedophiles" to "pedophiles" has already been taken, and from there, it's a *very* small step to "accused pedophiles", an illustrious group that includes Ta bu shi da yu, Schissel, and Lucky 6.9, all named by "Parents for the Online Safety of Children", Jtdirl, Gmaxwell, and me, all named by Jeff Merkey, and no doubt others.
Quakeaid has also been involved in this sort of mudslinging. But I agree, next we'll be targetting libertarians, straight people, and then we will finally have a chance to meet Mr. Treason...
"Mark Wagner" carnildo@gmail.com wrote in message news:31073ef90602071549v22ddf451w3e14def1dfe1f540@mail.gmail.com... On 2/7/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak.
The problem is that the step from "admitted pedophiles" to "pedophiles" has already been taken, and from there, it's a *very* small step to "accused pedophiles", an illustrious group that includes Ta bu shi da yu, Schissel, and Lucky 6.9, all named by "Parents for the Online Safety of Children", Jtdirl, Gmaxwell, and me, all named by Jeff Merkey, and no doubt others.
I was labelled a "pedophile" by well-known Usenet-kook John Grubor about 10 years ago; you can look it up in newsgroup archives easily enough. It was his favourite method of attacking anybody who stumbled into his line of fire, and is practically a badge of honour (not so much a Purple Heart as a Vaguely Lilac Heart :-).
This is not the sort of thing I want to be slung about like slurry outside the town hall[1]...it would not, for example, have been easy to explain to non-technical Social Workers when we adopted our daughter.
The fact remains: I have been accused thereof, it's verifiable: what if somebody decides it would be a good idea to paste it into my User Page?
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
I agree. For concreteness, I would mention [[User:LuxOfTKGL]]. I don't know how valuable an editor he was, but his user page would seem to be an example of a non-trolling self-declared pedophile.
There is a pragmatic argument: if we ban people on sight for admitting extreme/objectionable views, then people will not admit those views, but will edit anyway. It's much preferable that we know who these people are. We also lose an editor, of course.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who they are or what they believe"?
Steve
Don't forget, Steve, to consider all aspects of a policy, including the public relations concerns. As a top-ten Web site with some minor oopsies already on our record, we need to be careful about how eagerly we hand the media any sort of "haven for pedophiles"-shaped club to beat us with.
With that caveat, you will see a related statement come from our ArbComm ruling.
- -- Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation, sean@epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
On 2/8/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Don't forget, Steve, to consider all aspects of a policy, including the public relations concerns. As a top-ten Web site with some minor oopsies already on our record, we need to be careful about how eagerly we hand the media any sort of "haven for pedophiles"-shaped club to beat us with.
With that caveat, you will see a related statement come from our ArbComm ruling.
Being a top ten webiste would slightly kill the servers. Better hope for some bad publicity.
-- geni
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
Yes, I think we can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
Wikipedia is open to all
10.2) 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. In addition, "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." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy
Support:
1. ➥the Epopt 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2. Fred Bauder 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 3. Raul654 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Harm to the project has to be the standard. 6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 8. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 10. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 11. Neutralitytalk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 12. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
G'day Steve,
Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
A noble sentiment, to be sure. Personally I'd like to see paedophiles gone from the site, but I accept that I don't actually have a logical, unemotional argument to back me up, so I'm not going to run around advocating such.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
Ahh ... "I'm an X" is not blockable, but trolling *is*. I like your proposal.
Except ... well ... what if they say "I'm a troll"? Note that we have several users who do exactly that ...
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
On 2/10/06, Mark Gallagher > Ahh ... "I'm an X" is not blockable, but trolling *is*. I like your
proposal.
Except ... well ... what if they say "I'm a troll"? Note that we have several users who do exactly that ...
Well, this has been discussed a bit in this thread. The short answer is, as soon as they start acting as a troll, start treating them like a troll. The complexity is whether loudly stating "I AM A TROLL SO THERE" counts as trolling. Definitely a judgment call.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/10/06, Mark Gallagher > Ahh ... "I'm an X" is not blockable, but trolling *is*. I like your
proposal.
Except ... well ... what if they say "I'm a troll"? Note that we have several users who do exactly that ...
Well, this has been discussed a bit in this thread. The short answer is, as soon as they start acting as a troll, start treating them like a troll. The complexity is whether loudly stating "I AM A TROLL SO THERE" counts as trolling. Definitely a judgment call.
Is mentioning the GNAA (and AFDing it) Wikipedia's equivalent of invoking Godwin's Law?
On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Except ... well ... what if they say "I'm a troll"? Note that we have several users who do exactly that ...
I see nothing wrong with saying, "I'm a troll; that's my pastime, but I don't engage in it on Wikipedia."