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(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote: 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, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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(a)fairpoint.net> 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, 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 24/12/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 (à la the tabloid press). -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:51:10PM -0800, George Herbert wrote: 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(a)armory.com>

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=17…

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_… 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_… (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_… ) 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:

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:

Ken Arromdee wrote: 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

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:39, Ken Arromdee wrote: And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem? -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 14:56, Ken Arromdee wrote: Sure. Ban actions, not users; if the user can come back without causing problems, great. -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

At 10:35 PM 12/24/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: 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.

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 24/12/2007, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote: Amen.

Ray Saintonge wrote: 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

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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

Andrew Gray wrote: 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 Dec 24, 2007 10:44 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: 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. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote: 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.