There was a recent ANI post about a user who identifies himself as a peodophile ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Pro_pedophile_advocacy_userbox ). His userbox has been deleted. I'd like to know where we stand in relation to peadophiles. Any thoughts or opinions on this subject? I know it's difficult, but we really need some kind of policy about this.
Phoenix-wiki
There was a recent ANI post about a user who identifies himself as a peodophile ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Pro_pedophile_advocacy_userbox ). His userbox has been deleted. I'd like to know where we stand in relation to peadophiles. Any thoughts or opinions on this subject? I know it's difficult, but we really need some kind of policy about this.
Phoenix-wiki
We have a policy. Advocacy of pedophilia is not tolerated, nor is trolling for partners.
Fred
I completely agree with at policy, but wonder if it is well enough known. Perhaps it ought to be more publicised. A month or so ago I came across a suspect User (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman_Czyborra) whose User page photograph of himself was a "seemingly" adolescent boy full frontal (anyone who is the father of sons would know instantly) but it still took a couple of weeks to get the image deleted - and then only after the user showed his true colours and was banned. That is not good enough really. I do think the message has to be stronger and more visible. Not to a state of witch-hunt but certainly so we all know when to be decisive and fast to respond.
Giacomo
On Dec 24, 2007 5:06 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
There was a recent ANI post about a user who identifies himself as a peodophile (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Pro_pedophile_advocacy_userbox
). His userbox has been deleted. I'd like to know where we stand in relation to peadophiles. Any thoughts or opinions on this subject? I know it's difficult, but we really need some kind of policy about this.
Phoenix-wiki
We have a policy. Advocacy of pedophilia is not tolerated, nor is trolling for partners.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/12/2007, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I completely agree with at policy, but wonder if it is well enough known. Perhaps it ought to be more publicised. A month or so ago I came across a suspect User (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman_Czyborra) whose User page photograph of himself was a "seemingly" adolescent boy full frontal (anyone who is the father of sons would know instantly) but it still took a couple of weeks to get the image deleted - and then only after the user showed his true colours and was banned. That is not good enough really. I do think the message has to be stronger and more visible. Not to a state of witch-hunt but certainly so we all know when to be decisive and fast to respond.
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted. If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue. It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not really sure what's best in that situation.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue. It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not really sure what's best in that situation.
If someone is self-describing - and particularly if they are doing it "loud and proud" on their userpage, there are really only two possibilities:
1) Most likely they are trolling. In which case, we ask them to desist from trolling. If they don't we show them the door, regardless of their own beliefs or inclinations. This is incredibly disruptive and trolling is intolerable.
2) Possibly they are what they say. In which case they are trying to present their inclinations as "normal" or "within the spectrum of legitimate wikipedian views". They are presenting them as no different from "user is a democrat" or "user is Spanish". Now, if that's not an attempt to promote or advocacy, I don't know what it. It may not be encouraging pedophilia, but it is certainly encouraging the acceptance of it. Semantics of "of they are referring to an inclination not an act" are silly - the disruptive effect is identical.
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. Using that project to present something most people view as unacceptable as normal is a misuse of wikipedia and brings us into disrepute.
Ask yourself this: is the project best served by stamping hard on this activity, and losing a few trolls/advocates/"girl-lovers", or are we best taking a permissive line and losing goodwill, public relations, concerned parents who edit? Forget ethics and rights, and be pragmatic - what is least disruptive of our mission. You really want to wait till there's a "Wikipedophile" story in the New York Times: they link it with a negative spin on our Bomis roots and this will cost us dearly.
Ethics, of course, is the clincher for many of us. Children first - zero tolerance: but I'm happy to ally my ethics with those who agree for utilitarian, pragmatic, and positivist reasons.
No, is is fairly clear. We will not hound people for their personal beliefs, but disrupting the project in this way will not be tolerated.
Doc
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted.
No http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naked_children
If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
CSD is long enough. I think we can credit admins with enough brain cells to deal with this one.
On 24/12/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted.
No http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naked_children
If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
CSD is long enough. I think we can credit admins with enough brain cells to deal with this one.
I agree. In the past, to thebest of my recollection, we have tended to best handle this kind of thing through instant deletion while directing queries about the matter to private email. This applies to all instances where the age of the persons is in serious doubt.
On 24/12/2007, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I completely agree with at policy, but wonder if it is well enough known. Perhaps it ought to be more publicised. A month or so ago I came across a suspect User (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman_Czyborra) whose User page photograph of himself was a "seemingly" adolescent boy full frontal (anyone who is the father of sons would know instantly) but it still took a couple of weeks to get the image deleted - and then only after the user showed his true colours and was banned. That is not good enough really. I do think the message has to be stronger and more visible. Not to a state of witch-hunt but certainly so we all know when to be decisive and fast to respond.
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted. If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue. It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not really sure what's best in that situation.
There are all sorts of permutations and possibilities, including serious scholarship, which it is possible to misinterpret as advocacy. Not sure describes my reaction as well, but we've been blocking the more egregious editors and deleting much of what seems to be advocacy. Children, or apparent children, possibly law enforcement, who present a sexual persona are a special case. There is no need to go through an involved process to delete such material or block such accounts. Explicit detailed discussions are likely to defeat our purpose, which could simply be expressed as "No".
Fred
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. Using that project to present something most people view as unacceptable as normal is a misuse of wikipedia and brings us into disrepute.
Absolutely right. Wikipedia is, when you get right down to it, just an informational website. We aren't here to be a platform for *anyone*, much less pedophiles.
Preserving the sanctity of the project demands banning self-identified pedophiles, as has happened many times in the past. For those who might protest that pedophiles have a right to voice their feelings, there are plenty of other online forums for them to do so. Wikipedia is not one of those. This is no different than Jimbo banning that little cadre of neo-nazis a while back.
On Dec 24, 2007 7:58 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 24/12/2007, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I completely agree with at policy, but wonder if it is well enough known. Perhaps it ought to be more publicised. A month or so ago I came across a suspect User (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman_Czyborra) whose User page photograph of himself was a "seemingly" adolescent boy full frontal (anyone who is the father of sons would know instantly) but it still took a couple of weeks to get the image deleted - and then only after the user showed his true colours and was banned. That is not good enough really. I do think the message has to be stronger and more visible. Not to a state of witch-hunt but certainly so we all know when to be decisive and fast to respond.
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted. If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue. It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not really sure what's best in that situation.
There are all sorts of permutations and possibilities, including serious scholarship, which it is possible to misinterpret as advocacy. Not sure describes my reaction as well, but we've been blocking the more egregious editors and deleting much of what seems to be advocacy. Children, or apparent children, possibly law enforcement, who present a sexual persona are a special case. There is no need to go through an involved process to delete such material or block such accounts. Explicit detailed discussions are likely to defeat our purpose, which could simply be expressed as "No".
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Preserving the sanctity of the project demands banning self-identified pedophiles, as has happened many times in the past. For those who might protest that pedophiles have a right to voice their feelings, there are plenty of other online forums for them to do so. Wikipedia is not one of those. This is no different than Jimbo banning that little cadre of neo-nazis a while back.
It's really a practical decision. Whereas *in theory* allowing a theoretical "good editor" neo-Nazi or *cough* child-love-advocate on might enhance the quality of our articles and how well they approach the ideal of neutral point of view, *in practice* every single such attempt has been a ludicrous failure, to the point where the theoretical idea's failure is serenaded by the world's smallest violin.
- d.
[[User:Moreschi]] and I argued about this on IRC just yesterday; while he argued that allowing pro-pedophilia userboxes would allow us to more easily identify these people, it was my contention that not only would these types of userboxes be inflammatory and divisive (particularly to those who know or were child victims), but that we should be judging people by the content of their edits, not what they have on their userpage. As David Gerard mentioned, the vast majority of pro-pedophilia editors have turned out to be trolls and/or soapboxers.
On Dec 24, 2007 1:30 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
[[User:Moreschi]] and I argued about this on IRC just yesterday; while he argued that allowing pro-pedophilia userboxes would allow us to more easily identify these people,
...Not if our response to people using them is insta-ban.
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
The issue of researchers who aren't themselves pedophiles or activists for it raises one slight concern, but really, we're an Encyclopedia not a research foundation or journal. Those people probably have already figured out how to discuss the issue in research terms without causing people to believe that they're for it, because you have to do that to talk about it academically without everyone around you reacting with revulsion. If they can't make that abundantly clear on Wikipedia then their credentials are somewhat suspect...
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (Ã la the tabloid press).
On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (Ã la the tabloid press).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
There's some stretch to apply that to a category of users we have not specifically individually named, but the general idea is similar enough.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:51:10PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
This is a horrible idea (not just for pedophiles, but for anyone permabanned for any reason).
If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user, if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?
(yes, I'm aware of the conceptual difference between "banning" and "blocking"; blocking is just the manner by which bans are enforced).
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
From: Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@deepthought.armory.com
If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user, if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?
On a related note, I really don't understand the notion that some people have that any article written by a banned editor while he's banned must be deleted regardless of whether it's a valid article or not. That's another instance of putting the goal of "punishment" ahead of "encyclopedia writing".
Just as a matter of courtesy to this thread, I've added a line in WP:USER to make it less unwritten because, frankly, it needs to be less so.
Diff link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_page&diff=179...
On 25/12/2007, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
Just as a matter of courtesy to this thread, I've added a line in WP:USER to make it less unwritten because, frankly, it needs to be less so.
Probably a useful idea. I've added a note that we don't care if you're serious or trolling.
- d.
A reasonable idea, but [[User:Zanthalon]] is not a good example of this. That user has been unfairly blocked.
We don't block editors for being pedophiles, or because we found out they were a pedophile. We block them if they try to promote pedophilia. This, however, does not seem to be the case with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon
Fred Bauder blocked this editor based on "activities" that did not exist. The ironic part is that this was pointed out in the arbcom case specifically at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
The user did identify as being a pedophile on their userpage, as can be seen in this Wikipedia mirror: http://users.open-encyclopedia.com/Zanthalon This message was made before the arbcom case, and before that user had any indication that such a comment might be inappropriate. No one ever notified this user about this, no warning, nothing. I have no reason to believe this user would not have removed the comment themselves if they were aware of the situation, and would have abided by the findings of the arbcom case. However, almost a full year after the editor was regularly on Wikipedia, and two months since their last edit, Fred Bauder comes in and indefinitely blocks the editor and deletes both their talk and user talk pages, and protects them.
This is a direct violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy)
Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported during that case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... )
I'm no pedophile, and I think this guy needs help, but it's his life. As long as he doesn't touch anyone, I don't care what he does. He was a good editor on Wikipedia and followed all the policies he knew about. This ban serves no point, and helps no one.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 25, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Will wrote:
Just as a matter of courtesy to this thread, I've added a line in WP:USER to make it less unwritten because, frankly, it needs to be less so.
Diff link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_page&diff=179... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported during that case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all
As I said there:
"we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious way."
Fred
And this user did no such thing. Not only that, but seems to be unaware that the statement made on their user page was a violation of anything. Even after reading the arbcom case, I don't see how this text that Zanthalon wrote could be considered something to be banned over:
"Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific. I would stress, however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under the statutory age of consent. I do not have a great deal of time to devote to Wikipedia, so most of it up until now has been devoted to pedophilia-related articles. Hopefully in the future, I will be able to spend more time on other articles as well."
Why did you not just delete the userpage, or blank that section? Your actions are that of an overzealous right winged mother who just found out that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood. You have judged this user based on their personal beliefs, and not their actions. This is entirely inappropriate, and needs to be undone.
Might I note that users who have -created- pro-pedophile userboxes have not been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. One recent creator has never been banned for those actions, in fact. The ban of Zanthalon is completely unjust, and violates the blocking policy, the arbcom case, and the Foundation's policy on discrimination.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 25, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported during that case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/ Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all
As I said there:
"we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious way."
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
On a related note, I really don't understand the notion that some people have that any article written by a banned editor while he's banned must be deleted regardless of whether it's a valid article or not. That's another instance of putting the goal of "punishment" ahead of "encyclopedia writing".
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period. In other words, unless valid articles from banned editors are deleted, there is no such thing as a ban at all.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
On a related note, I really don't understand the notion that some people have that any article written by a banned editor while he's banned must be deleted regardless of whether it's a valid article or not. That's another instance of putting the goal of "punishment" ahead of "encyclopedia writing".
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period. In other words, unless valid articles from banned editors are deleted, there is no such thing as a ban at all.
That imparts greater importance to the ban than to the abuse. It turns the situation into a power game as the two parties try to establish who is the bigger dick.
Remember too that the editors do not own the articles; you are granting the evader the power of ownership.
Ec
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
On a related note, I really don't understand the notion that
some people have that any article written by a banned editor while he's banned must be deleted regardless of whether it's a valid article or not. That's another instance of putting the goal of "punishment" ahead of "encyclopedia writing".
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period. In other words, unless valid articles from banned editors are deleted, there is no such thing as a ban at all.
But my point is that the goal of "maintaining a ban on a user" is _not_ more important than the goal of "writing the damned encyclopedia." If maintaining a ban on someone requires deleting perfectly good encyclopedic content that has nothing wrong with it otherwise, well, screw the ban. You're not advancing the state of Wikipedia and of free content in general by getting rid of such stuff.
If they page was written by a sock puppet of a banned user (presumably, since the scenario is that he wrote the page while banned), then upon identifying it just ban the sock puppet too. "Thank you for your contribution, but back into the hole with you."
Would you also be in favor of deleting otherwise perfectly good articles that were copied from GFDLed text that a banned user had written and posted on a different website?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:39, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period.
And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem?
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period.
And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem?
Well, then it's equivalent to "never ban users". Do we want a policy of "never ban users"?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 14:56, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period.
And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem?
Well, then it's equivalent to "never ban users". Do we want a policy of "never ban users"?
Sure. Ban actions, not users; if the user can come back without causing problems, great.
On Dec 26, 2007 3:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period.
And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem?
Well, then it's equivalent to "never ban users". Do we want a policy of "never ban users"?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reading WP:BAN, it's interesting to note it doesn't actually say ''why'' we can/should/do ban people, although it implies "disruptive behaviour" is the cause of bans (which I would say is generally true). In comparison with blocking, we can probably infer that bans, like blocks, are "preventative, not punitive", especially given that many bans are of temporary duration (ArbCom likes months and years, neh?). In most if not all cases (and I do have one in mind that's probably contrary) banned users that we believed would no longer be disruptive would get unbanned. In this paradigm, deleting old contributions of banned users that are nondisruptive is unnecessary and uncalled for, one might readily conclud.
In short, we ban people because they're a hinderance to the task of making an encyclopaedia. There's no reason to undo anything they've done that isn't such a hinderance, and there's no reason not to let them return if we believe they'll no longer be disruptive (although this can be hard to evaluate).
Cheers WilyD
At 10:35 PM 12/24/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
This is a horrible idea (not just for pedophiles, but for anyone permabanned for any reason).
If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user, if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?
Well, it's punitive, in a way, but it's also preventative. A permanent ban is issued, in theory, because a judgement has been made that the user is quite likely to abuse the editing privilege again. If a user will not respect the right of the community, through its chosen process (or, alternatively, the owner, WMF, through its chosen process), to restrict access, even if there is no current harmful activity, there is, supposedly, a reasonable expectation that the user will again be tempted to violate policy.
That is, that the user violates a ban is evidence that the user is likely to violate other policies, and, in the case described, merely has not done so yet.
In practice, the only socks of banned users that get caught this way are those of banned users who have *really* offended the community, such that those who might seem to have the same interests can get checkusered. I'm not sure if this is happening, but it seems to me from looking over checkuser cases, that socks *which were not the target of complaints* are getting caught. Presumably, the checkuser is looking at known IP for the banned user and perhaps other evidence, and sees new accounts matching. Some of these accounts, as far as I can tell, never edited (I can't see deleted edits, to be sure). I don't think it is policy to routinely check for permanent ban violations.
So if, in fact, a permabanned user was not so egregious that editors are suspecting him under every bed, the likelihood of a new account that keeps its nose clean getting caught is fairly low, if I'm correct; and I suspect that if a user actually did come back and edited cleanly for a substantial time, then was caught up in some checkuser probe without actually having done anything, there might be some possibility of appeal. "Yes, I was BadPuppetMaster, but I've seen the error of my ways, I learned my lesson, and I'd really like to continue to contribute to the project, if you will permit." Not very likely, though.
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (Ã la the tabloid press).
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
Sounds like a policy to have rules trump common sense. If the new account continues to behave sensibly there should be absolutely no need to impose further punitive actions. If we have succeeded in getting someone to play nice the original disciplinary action has accomplished its aims. Further blocking without genuine cause is only for admins who like to play power games.
Ec
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (Ã la the tabloid press).
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
Sounds like a policy to have rules trump common sense. If the new account continues to behave sensibly there should be absolutely no need to impose further punitive actions. If we have succeeded in getting someone to play nice the original disciplinary action has accomplished its aims. Further blocking without genuine cause is only for admins who like to play power games.
Ec
There is no reasonable doubt that pedophiles, actual convicted pedophile who have molested children and served time in prison, and perhaps continue their activities, edit Wikipedia. So long as they do not identify themselves as pedophiles and engage in pedophile activism we do not look for them, although, I suppose, should they use their real names and offer identifying information, someone might someday point one out. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. The point is, provided a user edits in a reasonable way, we don't attempt to identify the person behind the user or whatever troubles they had or may have. That would include the example above, unless checkuser happened to expose them. But for it to be likely for checkuser to do so they would have to engage in troublesome editing. I certainly don't save ips banned users edited from and then systematically troll for re-emergence of new users and don't think anyone should. A troublesome editor will continue to be troublesome. If they don't, they are not a troublesome editor, just someone who had some trouble.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (Ã la the tabloid press).
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
Sounds like a policy to have rules trump common sense. If the new account continues to behave sensibly there should be absolutely no need to impose further punitive actions. If we have succeeded in getting someone to play nice the original disciplinary action has accomplished its aims. Further blocking without genuine cause is only for admins who like to play power games.
Ec
There is no reasonable doubt that pedophiles, actual convicted pedophile who have molested children and served time in prison, and perhaps continue their activities, edit Wikipedia. So long as they do not identify themselves as pedophiles and engage in pedophile activism we do not look for them, although, I suppose, should they use their real names and offer identifying information, someone might someday point one out. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. The point is, provided a user edits in a reasonable way, we don't attempt to identify the person behind the user or whatever troubles they had or may have. That would include the example above, unless checkuser happened to expose them. But for it to be likely for checkuser to do so they would have to engage in troublesome editing. I certainly don't save ips banned users edited from and then systematically troll for re-emergence of new users and don't think anyone should. A troublesome editor will continue to be troublesome. If they don't, they are not a troublesome editor, just someone who had some trouble.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh wow. No, just no. We do not ban editors because we -found out- they were pedophiles, or that they once identified themselves as such. That is a direct violation of the Foundation's no discrimination policy.
-- ~~~~
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Free speech and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Free speech and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive.
But they really are, if we understand what is meant in this context by "a free speech zone".
The question here is "time, place, and manner" restrictions. If you want to advocate for racism (for example), you are certainly welcome to do so: just not here, not at Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
On 12/25/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Free speech and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive.
But they really are, if we understand what is meant in this context by "a free speech zone".
The question here is "time, place, and manner" restrictions. If you want to advocate for racism (for example), you are certainly welcome to do so: just not here, not at Wikipedia.
Okay, the problem here is that that is precisely what wikipedia has been accused of, historically. Surely you remember the outburst of RK; his E-mail on the mailing lists where he said wikipedia was a Nazi site.
Having taken advice from his Rabbi, no less.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Free speech and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive.
But they really are, if we understand what is meant in this context by "a free speech zone".
The question here is "time, place, and manner" restrictions. If you want to advocate for racism (for example), you are certainly welcome to do so: just not here, not at Wikipedia.
The question is really what we intend when we use the term "Wikipedia" in this kind of thread. If you use the term in its narrowest sense as what the passive information-seeking public sees you are closer to being right. For most people who have been active contributors it is much more than that. For them "Wikipedia" includes all the various namespaces where difficult problems are hammered out. Some might even see the mailing lists and IRC as a part of the greater Wikipedia. Free speech is essential to hammering out the problems, and it follows from this that without free speech NPOV is unattainable.
Maybe this is what you mean by "time, place and manner", but that's not what's coming across. What's being communicated is a highly restrictive environment where there is no place provided in which to express a different opinion, or at least not one that is contrary to received wisdom. Advocacy, like advertising goes beyond free speech We have a history of dislike for advertising even for the most benign of products. Repeated claims on behalf of these products by the same person will stand him in no better stead than if he was promoting racism.
Remember too that most of us who take a more liberal view on dealing with these explosively controversial subject would still not dream of doing so in an article. Sometimes it pays to give people credit for a little more sophistication than a simplistic black-and-white duality between Wikipedia and free speech.
Ec
On Dec 26, 2007 9:03 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The question here is "time, place, and manner" restrictions. If you want to advocate for racism (for example), you are certainly welcome to do so: just not here, not at Wikipedia.
The question is really what we intend when we use the term "Wikipedia" in this kind of thread. If you use the term in its narrowest sense as what the passive information-seeking public sees you are closer to being right. For most people who have been active contributors it is much more than that. For them "Wikipedia" includes all the various namespaces where difficult problems are hammered out. Some might even see the mailing lists and IRC as a part of the greater Wikipedia. Free speech is essential to hammering out the problems, and it follows from this that without free speech NPOV is unattainable.
Maybe this is what you mean by "time, place and manner", but that's not what's coming across. What's being communicated is a highly restrictive environment where there is no place provided in which to express a different opinion, or at least not one that is contrary to received wisdom. Advocacy, like advertising goes beyond free speech We have a history of dislike for advertising even for the most benign of products. Repeated claims on behalf of these products by the same person will stand him in no better stead than if he was promoting racism.
Remember too that most of us who take a more liberal view on dealing with these explosively controversial subject would still not dream of doing so in an article. Sometimes it pays to give people credit for a little more sophistication than a simplistic black-and-white duality between Wikipedia and free speech.
Ec
For me the great paradox of wikipedia is that none of us really know *how* it fundamentally solves things, but in practise *it does*.
This reminds me both of the "flight of the bumblebee", and of Winston Churchills quip on the Americans that they can be trusted to do the right thing "after having tried every other way".
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 24/12/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There was a recent ANI post about a user who identifies himself as a peodophile ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Pro_pedophile_advocacy_userbox ). His userbox has been deleted.
Oh boy. Almost two years exactly since we last blew up over this one... is this some kind of historical re-enactment?
On 24/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Oh boy. Almost two years exactly since we last blew up over this one... is this some kind of historical re-enactment?
Didn't this happen last year as well? "IT'S NOT AN ANNUAL TOURNAMENT."
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Oh boy. Almost two years exactly since we last blew up over this one... is this some kind of historical re-enactment?
Yeah.
We should probably have an official policy page:
The policy in a nutshell: pedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia.
Justification: there is no rational justification for this policy. But Wikipedia is no longer small and elite enough that pure rationality can hold full sway. It might be nice if pedophiles could edit Wikipedia noncontentiously, and have their punishment for their pedophilia confined to the real world. But, sadly, there are now sufficiently many people on Wikipedia who are willing to be blinded by emotion on this issue that it is simply impossible for pedophiles to edit. Like it or not, they will be blocked and banished. Even people who speak up for them are presumed to harbor unhealthy pedophilic sympathies and are gravely suspect. (Indeed, the author of this policy page wonders if he'll be next.)
On 24/12/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Oh boy. Almost two years exactly since we last blew up over this one... is this some kind of historical re-enactment?
Yeah.
We should probably have an official policy page:
The policy in a nutshell: pedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia. Justification: there is no rational justification for this policy. But Wikipedia is no longer small and elite enough that pure rationality can hold full sway. It might be nice if pedophiles could edit Wikipedia noncontentiously,and have their punishment for their pedophilia confined to the real world. But, sadly, there are now sufficiently many people on Wikipedia who are willing to be blinded by emotion on this issue that it is simply impossible for pedophiles to edit. Like it or not, they will be blocked and banished. Even people who speak up for them are presumed to harbor unhealthy pedophilic sympathies and are gravely suspect. (Indeed, the author of this policy page wonders if he'll be next.)
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
On Dec 24, 2007 10:44 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Oh boy. Almost two years exactly since we last blew up over this one... is this some kind of historical re-enactment?
Yeah.
We should probably have an official policy page:
The policy in a nutshell: pedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia.
Hell no. I catch anyone enforcing that as written, and we *will* have a re-enactment of two years ago. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a lynch mob. Anyone who wishes to make valid contributions to that encyclopedia is welcome to do so.
From: Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com
On Dec 24, 2007 10:44 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
The policy ina nutshell: pedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia.
Hell no. I catch anyone enforcing that as written, and we *will* have a re-enactment of two years ago. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a lynch mob. Anyone who wishes to make valid contributions to that encyclopedia is welcome to do so.
To put it in perspective, we don't ban murderers. IMO murder is worse than pedophilia since at least the victims of pedophilia have the opportunity to recover and carry on with their lives.
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
To put it in perspective, we don't ban murderers. IMO murder is worse than pedophilia since at least the victims of pedophilia have the opportunity to recover and carry on with their lives.
But has there ever been anyone who wanted to put "I enjoy committing murder" on their user page? Note that they can enjoy it and still not actually do it, just like a pedophile might be attracted to children but not act on it, so "murder is illegal" isn't a good objection.
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
To put it in perspective, we don't ban murderers. IMO murder
is worse than pedophilia since at least the victims of pedophilia have the opportunity to recover and carry on with their lives.
But has there ever been anyone who wanted to put "I enjoy committing murder" on their user page?
You're moving the goalposts a bit here. I was responding to a proposal to plain out "ban pedophiles", regardless of what they did or did not post to Wikipedia.
I think it's reasonable to have all sorts of restrictions on what people post on userpages, those are totally within our purview. Going beyond that and banning people for stuff they do or believe or feel _outside_ of Wikipedia is where we're into less supported territory.
There are many topics that elicit strong reactions, and pedophilia is one of them. Because of the societal taboo concerning the topic, most admins and experienced editors are reluctant to participate. Unfortunately that reticence by conventionally-minded individuals tends to leave topics open to skewing by more narrowly-minded editors. That can lead to biased articles. Few of us *want* to deal with pedophile-related articles. Those that do tend to have axes to grind. It would be enormously beneficial to WP if more uninterested editors could pay attention to pedophile related articles, and other unpopular topics. I myself was dragged in by Katefan04, who isn't with us anymore. But it doesn't take an engraved invitation. I urge everyone on this email list to watchlist articles like Pedophilia North American Man/Boy Love Association Pro-pedophile activism Child sexual abuse Girllove
Countless topics have engaged POV fighters. This topic is worth attention because of the maturity and tenaciousness of its proponents. Those of us who've been around a while remember various clumsy efforts to distort WP articles by special-interest groups, like the neo-Nazi StormFront crew, etc. Pedophilia is similar but different due to the sophistication of the POV editors.
It takes uninterested editors to balance the material. Please be among them.
Will Beback
At 06:00 AM 12/25/2007, Will Beback wrote:
Countless topics have engaged POV fighters. This topic is worth attention because of the maturity and tenaciousness of its proponents. Those of us who've been around a while remember various clumsy efforts to distort WP articles by special-interest groups, like the neo-Nazi StormFront crew, etc. Pedophilia is similar but different due to the sophistication of the POV editors.
It takes uninterested editors to balance the material. Please be among them.
I'll try. But I'm not "uninterested." I have a policy of not editing articles where I have no interest at all in the subject, because I'm, then, quite likely to not understand the topic. I have a POV, but I use my POV to detect bias. I'm disinterested in the sense that I value the project more than any POV, including my own.
I have some experience with counseling pedophiles, though only those who got caught. So I know the people, in a few cases, behind that mask and label. And I also know a few of those who suffered from contact with them.