Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

Two major threads here. tl;dr summary: This wanker was creepy.

*******************************************************************

Subject: [arbcom-l] Why have I been blocked?
------------------------

From: Thesevenseas <thesevenoceans@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 18:20
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


What have I done wrong do deserve such a punishment? I've always been a good editor. Every block must have a block rationale to go with it. I have done nothing wrong. This block is unjustified. It's not fair that a good editor be treated worse than a vandal or sockpuppeteer. Please reverse this.
Thanks,
Thesevenseas.

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 09:05
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


<list only> Do we even /have/ a canned responses for blocks of this nature? It'd hardly do to write back telling him that we've blocked him because he's an obvious sexual predator. Even a simple statement of fact a la "harassment of young female editors" is problematic.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:52
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


You could say something like "transcripts of chat logs were passed to
us that contained conduct that was of immediate concern, so we blocked
until such a time as you were able to explain this conduct". You might
also ask on functionaries if there was a police report, and if so to
follow up on that. It depends whether you want to end up writing back
to him saying "this matter is the subject of a police investigation,
so I can't say more on the matter" (or whether it is even our place to
say this).

Difficult, I agree.

Carcharoth
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 17:32
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Thesevenseas <thesevenoceans@googlemail.com>


You have been blocked because we have received credible allegations that you have been harassing some editors on- and off-wiki. In particular, we have been sent copies of email and chat logs which display conduct which is entirely unacceptable from any person. In addition, your Wikipedia edits show repeated advances towards underage female editors, despite repeated requests to desist, and logs show that you have been misusing the "email this user" feature in order to communicate with such editors despite having been requested not to do so.

This kind of behavior is absolutely not tolerated on Wikipedia, and your editing privileges have been suspended accordingly. Nevertheless, this response will be circulated to all members of the Arbitration Committee and if, after discussion, we conclude that your appeal has any merit we will contact you again.

-- Coren


_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:20
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list only>

Forwarded verbatim.

I note the simple blanket denial, which would then be simple "he said she said"; were it not for the fact that his assertions about on-wiki behavior are demonstrably false, which throws a pall over his other claims.

At this point, I'm considering responding along the lines of "Your responses do not match observable reality." and end the matter there. Opinions?

-- Coren / Marc


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Why have I been blocked?
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:45:32 +0000
From: Thesevenseas <thesevenoceans@googlemail.com>
To: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>

Hi,
I've never harassed any editors both on and off wiki.
I've only ever used the email this user button once and that was for an oversight request, which was badly worded.
I've checked my records and I see nothing of that sort.
All my edits on wikipedia have been solely to do with improving the encyclopedia, mainly about templates. I don't believe that I've shown any sort of advances to anyone. All those I communicate with onwiki have an interest with templates. I don't see where the repeated requests to desist comes in. If I'm asked to stop doing something, I stop first time.
I agree completely with this, but I do not believe that I have carried out such behaviour.

This has come as a shock to me, mainly because I have never intended to do such things. It is completely against my personal beliefs. I admit that due to personal disabilities that I may misword emails, but I swear I have had no intention of harassing editors. If I did so by accident, then I apologise for that.

All I want to do here is help improve the encyclopedia and in some cases it means teaching other editors certain skills. There must be a mistake because my wikipedia talk page edits are definitely not advancing in any way, usually only replying to to a previous comment. Also, you imply that I've used the "email this user" button more than once. I've only used it once as stated earlier. If anything, I'm a socially awkward person trying to say one thing but ending up saying something else.

That said, I am really sorry for any wrongdoing on my part. I promise I didn't mean any harm or harassment, but I will still apologise.

Thank you for you time,
Thesevenseas.

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:56
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Thanks, Marc,

I'd like to know a bit more about the emails he is said to have sent. What do we know?

Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:47
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It's all second hand, on the fun-l thread. I'm at work, so I can't
look it up easily, but you should have no trouble finding them. If you
haven't by the time I get back home I'll dig it up for you.

The executive summary: "You're special, I really want to meet you,
where do you live" standard creepy stuff.

-- Coren / Marc

***************************************************************

Subject: [Functionaries-en] Off-wiki stalking involving a potential child predator
------------------------

From: Tiptoety <tiptoety@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 23:29
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


I was recently contacted by User:Sonia regarding an older adult male (User:Thesevenseas) that has been making various contacts with her via Wikipedia email, google chat, and other like venues. She stated she was concerned for her safety (given her age, which is under 18). In speaking with her, she stated that he has sent long worded emails with phrases like "I check my email on a daily basis looking for an email from you[...]" and "Our friendship is really important to me. I've never had a friend like you. I've lived a lonely life. I never got that friend I desperately needed. When I got to know you, I felt something a sense of happiness I'd never felt before." (Note that he is well aware she is young). He also made a statement in an email that said: " I got scared that something might happen to you at such a young and vulnerable age or that you'd disappear and we'd never hear from you again [...]".

Sonia also provided me with some logs from recent google chat conversations (which she has now blocked him from):
1:38 PM Melvin: Either way, our friendship is strong.

1:41 PM and I'll always be watching over you.

-----------------------

Melvin: I guess we'd justhave to meetup some time.

just have

12:21 PM I've made it one of my life ambitions to meet you someday.

me (Sonia): ...really?

Melvin: Indeed!

12:23 PM We have so much in common.

------------------------

Melvin: or are you nearer rosebank?

12:10 PM me (Sonia): uh...

stop stalking me

Melvin: I'm not



Upon looking over his contributions, he appears to have contacted quite a few "female" (at least by the sound of their username) editors. <http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Thesevenseas&namespace=3>, and likes to edit articles about female names.

Sonia provided me with his name, which is <REDACTED>, doing a google search did not turn up anything of interest. His email is <REDACTED>

Thoughts on this would be appreciated. Also, I have the full logs and email available for anyone who wants them.



Cheers,

~Tiptoety

en.wiki // commons


_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 23:54
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think it is enough to go to the police. There may be an issue there as
you don't seem to know his address. And doing a checkuser might be a
privacy problem. You might ask Sonia before you do though, or her
parents, as their cooperation would be required.

Maybe what needs to happen is to communicate all this to the FBI and let
professionals answer the questions that we all might have. They can get a
court order for a checkuser which we can then comply with.

The pattern seems classic predator. People who like children, or even
young women, don't act like he's doing.

Fred
> _______________________________________________
> Functionaries-en mailing list
> Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en
>



_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en

----------
From: Tiptoety <tiptoety@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 00:04
To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


I agree that contacting the Police is a must in this situation and recommend as much to Sonia.

Additionally, I agree with your assessment that this type of behavior is not "regular" of an older man conversing with a young girl.

My question for this list is, what action, if any should we be taking on-wiki to ensure the safety of Sonia and all users? Blocking him from contacting young editors via talk pages and disabling his email is probably about as far as we can go, but does anyone feel we have enough to justify doing so?

~Tiptoety
en.wiki // commons

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Hersfold <hersfoldwiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 00:45
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Given the top three pages listed on that toolserver link you gave, and that some of the posts made to those users are a little concerning, a block may be in order. I'm also wondering when those Google Chats you mentioned took place - Sonia left this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thesevenseas#a_request. note on Melvin's talk page two days ago, and if he's still contacting her, I don't believe we want him on Wikipedia.
----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 01:28
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


That... was an understatement. I've blocked, removed email, and deleted the talk page history which contains plenty of creepy stalkerish interaction. Everything tagged {{arbcomblock}}. That's about as far as we can go to protect editors on our side.

The remaining interaction with the victim about contacting the police probably remains a good idea.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 02:22
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Thanks Marc, I was going to do all that when I read this at work.

Tip will agree that 99.99% of the time I say "it's the internet," but this is serious. So if I say its serious, we need to take care of business in assisting Sonia.




--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 06:42
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Was looking to see if someone had done this when I found Marc and Keegan had. Agree too.

Keep CU data on this one and watch for a return.

Paul.

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 07:11
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Appears this user has recently had other accounts (Faust/Arjenvanslingerlandt and a doppleganger at least). His deleted User talk history from late September shows a usurp request where he claims "harassment", as well as considerable concerns by others about his editing (link to his rename request). There's no explanation of the "harassment" which is implied to be real-world, but around the same time he was the subject of complaints about his own edit warring on his deleted talk page and AN3, and that might be what it's about.

Before that he was [[User:Arjenvanslingerlandt]], renamed to Faust at CUU two months earlier in July 2010.

Paul.

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 08:54
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


His first edit to Cymru.lass was a wikilove post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cymru.lass#Smile.21

to LoveActresses

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LoveActresses&diff=prev&oldid=389192910

to Melba1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melba1#Smile.21

I stopped looking here.

There are more to other people but a disproportionate number of these
are to female editors considering the number of females on wiki. And
it looks as most of these females would be youngish from there names
and contributions.

So, I agree with blocking and cutting off his on site access to female users.

This may raise questions on site, so we need to be ready for it.

If Set Sail For The Seven Seas is in contact with people off site (IRC
and chat), he may give his side of the story to users.

Still probably will be best to say that Set Sail For The Seven Seas is
to contact ArbCom for details and leave it at that to keep speculation
off site.

Sydney

----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 14:47
To: functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org


Wow, I go away for a weekend and look what happens. Yes agree with outcome, and suggestion it be taken to local police
Cas

That... was an understatement. I've blocked, removed email, and deleted the talk page history which contains plenty of creepy stalkerish interaction. Everything tagged {{arbcomblock}}. That's about as far as we can go to protect editors on our side.



_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:21
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Thanks for this information, Tip. Do you have any copies of actual emails and so on from Sonia? If so, could you please email them to the Arbcom-en-L list so that we can better assess the situation?

If you don't, could you please provide someone with Sonia's email address and let her know that an arbitrator will contact her?

Thanks in advance for your help and attentiveness to this. I know from my own experiences with Sonia that she's a bit sensitive about working with male admins (possibly a negative past experience?), but she seems quite comfortable with you, which speaks well to your ability to put her at ease.

Best,

Risker/Anne



_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Tiptoety <tiptoety@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:54
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Risker,

I have emails and IRC / google chat logs that I have sent to ArbCom.

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


----------
From: Tiptoety <tiptoety@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 22:18
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Sonia wanted me to pass along her thanks for the quick action(s)/response of everyone involved!

Good work guys!

~Tiptoety
en.wiki // commons

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en

[Modnote: Reluctantly, the non-admin creep's real name and email have been redacted. -- gomi]

Posted by: -DS-

Wow.

Just wow.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Very creepy. That was the editor who worked on the Madeline MCCann article.

What's the principle at issue? Surely, the amateurish and arbitrary way in which Wikipedia deals with these issues. And the principle of 'anyone can edit', of course. Mostly that.

Posted by: Anna

Okay. So this proves that the Arbitration Committee isn't quite *always* arbitrary?

The guy they're talking about sounds like a drunk. Quite possibly worse, but a creepy drunk at least.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

If the problem requires no thought, even a mick can get it right.

Posted by: bi-winning

No. An arbitrary clock is right an arbitrary number of times per day.

Posted by: Somey

Apparently, lots of people who find themselves attracted to people they shouldn't be attracted to, and who then act on those attractions, deal with the associated guilt by drinking, or else self-medicating in various other ways.

However, in this person's case, you can see there's a great deal of patient and meticulous effort being put in - and given that this is Wikipedia, it explains how he's managed to get away with it for this long. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cymru.lass, for example, there's quite a large amount of posting about templates, deletion policy, yada yada, over the course of 3-4 weeks in October 2010 before he starts getting noticeably creepy. And he's obviously smart enough to know that he can't get away with anything too direct, even once he's gained a certain amount of trust, or whatever Wikipedians mean when they say "trust."

Having said that, despite the fact that this is a fairly clear-cut case, this is the Bureaucracy forum and I'm inclined to move this thread to a subforum where it won't be Google-indexed. Alternatively, redacting the guy's name might be a wise move, at least from a legal perspective - unless he's on some sort of official sex-offender list, he should still have some rights under the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, as difficult as that may be to stomach.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

It's Wikipedia. How does 7S know he's not simply stalking the many faces of Poetlister?

Posted by: Somey

That's actually a very good question, and while I'm tempted to say that he might swing both ways and not care, it's more likely that he actually enjoys the process (which he might see as a kind of game) as much as what he would see as the ideal outcome. I mean, what's the likely "success rate" for an internet pedophile? It has to be really, really small, and I would imagine some of these guys never do manage to get from the initial approach to some sort of actual physical sex act - I mean, teenage girls (and boys) aren't all necessarily stupid, and by now most of them are probably well aware of the existence of such people. Unless they actually want attention from pedos (which I would think is extremely rare/unusual), it's hard to imagine a lot of that happening based on stupidity alone.

I apologize if I seem insensitive to the problem from the parents' perspective, in this case at least... but the fact remains, there are billions of people in the world, and you only need a handful of particularly clever ones (with internet connections) to create a serious policy problem for a site like Wikipedia.

Posted by: Anna

Somey --

I don't follow the stuff about templates and deletion policies, but I suspect it's irrelevant mumbo jumbo. In any case, putting actual effort into gaining "trust", whatever that means, would certainly make it worse than the ramblings of a drunk. I mean, drunks can get pretty bad, but at least there's a sense that most of them probably didn't premeditate.

I suppose removing the name probably would be a wise move, legally speaking, although I'm not a lawyer and can't offer professional advice on the matter.

Posted by: Somey

Right, but you wouldn't necessarily know - the person also wants "deniability" in order to keep the game going after one or more failures. So he might be deliberately trying to develop trust between himself and the (supposedly) female user, but he's going to do it in such a way that it looks like innocent interaction over mundane, day-to-day WP issues like templates and deletion policies. And he'll continue to say that's all it was, indefinitely, and if he's careful it's going to be very difficult to prove otherwise, at least in a court of law.

As for alcoholism, some people basically lose control of themselves when posting-while-drunk, but certainly not everybody. A person who's drunk might be more aggressive or lose focus in an online discussion (or whatever we're calling it), but still be able to stay well within the parameters he's defined for himself in order to get away with whatever he's trying to get away with. Or, he might even be pretending to be drunk so that he can deny "conscious" responsibility for his actions later on, in case people do start to suspect.

Posted by: EricBarbour

They did the proper thing by kicking 7S. What gets me, though, is all the back-and-forth those Arbies have to engage in, just to make a simple and obvious administrative action like blocking an obvious sexual predator.

Almost as if they need constant psychological reinforcement to "do" their "jobs".
If you can call that a "job". Yep, Jimbo is getting the Arbcom he's paying for.

Posted by: Anna

Somey --

Yes, I am sure there are all kinds of denials such a person could make to explain why they don't actually mean what it looks like they mean. So, even if the local police had the money and resources to go after cyber criminals, which is a big IF given the current state of the economy, it's likely they wouldn't bother. Still, a sensible person, when talking to someone they know or suspect is a minor, would be careful not to do anything that even looks creepy. Of course, there is some possibility that a non-sensible but well-meaning person might come off looking uber creepy, and the real creeps, if it ever gets to court, are going to try to pretend to be the non-sensible but well-meaning person.

While the police and attorney generals might have to worry about such things, it's not really an issue when you're just deciding whether or not you want you or your children to interact with someone or whether or not you want a particular person using your website. If I see someone who looks like he's following me, I'm not going to have a debate on my head about how likely it is that I could prove in court that he was, indeed, following me, rather than just coincidentally heading in the same direction and walking at roughly the same speed. I'm going to do something to shake the guy off, like cross a street or walk into a safe-looking public establishment. (The real hard part is when someone is following you in a car while you are on foot, but I digress.)

So, sure, it's possible, for some sense of the word possible, that he's not as bad as he sounds, but, by sounding that creepy, he did put himself in the line of fire, and there's no reason anyone should have to put up with him. I'd be a lot more worried about the possibility that some mother might look at their kid's correspondence and freak out, or, god forbid, one of his advances, if they are what they appear to be, actually prove successful.

Posted by: Somey

Well, to be fair, in this case it looks like they blocked first, then discussed, not the other way around. Clearly the volume of discussion was larger than necessary, but that's SOP for Wikipedia - without the lengthy discussion, people will suspect that other people are trying to take over.

I actually think that some of this material reflects fairly well on most of the ArbCommers, personally - not so much because the tone of the discussions is what you'd hope for from such a group (it isn't), but because it gives us all some idea of what they actually have to put up with. I don't envy them in the slightest, not that I ever would, but it must be hard to deal with these creepy/nutty folks on a semi-regular basis and maintain even a semblance of equanimity - much less a sense of "idealism" or whatever they supposedly showed up with on Wikipedia in the first place.

And the fact that they show concern for negative publicity is perfectly normal, really. I don't blame them for showing the concern, though I might well blame them for taking deliberate action to cover stuff up.

Posted by: Somey

Well, just to clarify, I'd be very surprised if he isn't at least as bad as he sounds. I guess the real question should be, are there people like him who are much more careful and clever about it (and who aren't getting caught), or is this pretty much as bad as it really gets?

Btw, welcome to WR, Ms. Anna! I've been sort of "on vacation" (i.e., IRL-work-swamped) lately, or I would have welcomed you a bit sooner.

Posted by: Anna

Somey --

Hello!

I'd also be very surprised if he wasn't as bad as he sounds, but unless he's basically confessed his intentions, I'm guessing, as a non-professional, that there would be just enough doubt for a defense attorney to work with.

Of course there are worse people. There was the one serial rapist who somehow never got prosecuted. Sadistic guy, and some of the victims were young children. Justice was eventually done. One day, one of his would-be victims ran out across a highway. He followed. The would-be victim made it across the highway safely. The rapist was hit by a car, and died in a hospital several days later. The attorney general who failed to prosecute they guy was publicly decried and ultimately lost his public position.

And don't even get me started on some of the insane sadists out there. I mean, the sort of people you expect to hear about from someone describing a horror novel he read and loved, somehow failing to comprehend that many of us are not interested in that sort of horror novel and wish he would be quiet, but not the sort of people you expect to hear actually exist. The worst I've heard of is the "Toy Box Killer", and I wish I hadn't. Please, if you look it up, keep a bin to vomit in handy. I imagine there's probably ones even worse than that guy. I don't really want to know. I ate a good meal recently.

And yes, I'm sure there are plenty of creeps on the internet, some even worse than the guy described above, although the damage they can do over the internet tends to be limited, until, of course, it bleeds over into off-internet life.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

Arbcom should remember that WP is a private website intended to create an encyclopedia - and they don't really have to provide detailed (and legally compliant) rationales to remove people that they feel are detrimental to other users. Anyway, a truly "innocent" maker of dubious interactions would be aghast at the reception of their friendly gestures, and would agree not to make further comments. Only a stalker would argue for their "right" to interact according to their own considerations - perhaps not true, but close enough for the site guardians to close down the account.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I was only on the ArbCom for three months and it made me slightly crazy and definitely reduced my overall faith in my fellow humans. The fact is that Wikipedia is a nutter magnet, and Wikipedia's admins and arbitrators routinely get called on to "negotiate" disputes between people who really shouldn't be allowed to interact without people at all without immediate expert supervision. That's stressful under the best of situations. And by now a good portion of the admins and not a few arbitrators are nutters themselves (e.g. Rlevse), and that just makes it that much more crazymaking for the rest of them. Of course, Jimbo has always been a nutter, and that's not helped any either.

There probably should be a surgeon general's warning on the RfA page (and especially on the ArbCom election page).

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The whole practice of providing quasilegal rationales was a concoction of Fred Bauder, who apparently always wanted to be a Big Important Appeals Judge; it got support from James Forrester, who is certainly the main architect of the Jimbo-as-GodKing motif (with him, of course, as his Prime Minister, although that never quite worked out for him). Wikipedia's disciplinary practices and procedures are phenomenally stupid, and it continues to amaze me that legally-trained persons participate in them willingly given the rather high liability risk they create for themselves by doing so. It is likely only the fact that litigation in the US is a game mainly for the wealthy that has kept the ArbCommies from being sued, individually and collectively, into oblivion.

Posted by: Silver seren

Definitely a good job done by Arbcom in this situation. One of the few cases where I would totally ascribe to a block first policy.

Posted by: Emperor

I agree. A simple, "You have been blocked for intimidating behavior/harassment," would have sufficed, and been less inflammatory, and not have exposed the victims to retaliation. This quasi-legal stuff is ridiculous.

I'm no lawyer so I wouldn't tell this scumbag jack diddly unless genuine legal process were initiated and then I'd let the WMF lawyer handle the whole thing.

Posted by: carbuncle

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection&diff=358730596&oldid=358729863

Posted by: Silver seren

Are you somehow implying that User Paroxysm is User Thesevenseas or are you just trying to be cute? I stand by what I said there. User Thesevenseas was clearly and actively stalking underage female users, which means that he was actively and likely to become a legally prosecuted pedophile. The user who I was referring to when I made that comment was not. The userbox wheel wars have little to nothing to do with User Thesevenseas' case.

Posted by: carbuncle

I thought you saw no problem with paedophiles editing WP so long as they were making "good edits"? I'm sure I'll have no problem finding quotes to that effect from you. Yet you assert something as ridiculous as the idea that Thesevenseas was "actively and likely to become a legally prosecuted pedophile". He seemed to be targeting young woman and making them uncomfortable via chat, but that doesn't mean that he will end up meeting any of them, having any kind of physical contact with them (legal or otherwise), and end up getting arrested or charged with any crime, let alone prosecuted.

For someone who champions the rights of theoretical paedophiles to identify themselves and edit on WP, you seem to have difficulty keeping perspective when faced with a very tame real-world example. Maybe you should have a think about that?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

It is blindingly obvious that Wikipedia should exclude, without question or delay, anyone who is identifiable as a pedophile. Wikipedia is, without any doubt, a social networking site, and furthermore one that targets children in the 13 to 17 age range; as a result it morally (if not legally) has an obligation to monitor for, and when necessary interdict, predatory behavior.

One of the reasons Jimbo is so aggressive in declaring that Wikipedia is not a social networking site is that he doesn't want the site subjected to the extra scrutiny that social networking sites get from law enforcement, nor does he want it categorized as such in the web filters services that schools are (in many places) obliged to use as that would cut way back on his recruitment opportunities.

Posted by: Silver seren

Wow, no, that is not what I said at all. The reason for my stance on pedophiles on Wikipedia is because the current policy isn't protecting underage users. People who openly admit to some form of pedophilia should be actively monitored instead of being instantly blocked, because then they are likely just to create another account and make no mention of such a thing again and, if they are actually likely to act upon these psychological tendencies, then we will suddenly not be able to know who they are, because we blocked the account that we could have monitored and kept in line.

This case with Thesevenseas is essentially an example of a user acting upon those tendencies or on the path to and I think has more than enough evidence for there to be reason for blocking in this case. When I made other statements in reference to users, I was referring to users who made a statement that they are a pedophile or, like Paroxysm, just made a userbox in relation to it, without having actually done anything beyond that. These users should be watched so that, if they ever do make any sort of advances on younger users, they can be blocked and the police can be notified. Immediately blocking them just takes them off the radar and makes it far more likely that an incident will occur without our knowledge or possible preemption.

I stand by what i've said before, that the current policy is not to protect underage users, but to protect the Foundation from liability in the case of an incident occurring. The steps that would need to be taken to actually have measures to protect children would require the Foundation be partially liable if something happened, which is why they won't do it. It's an understandable stance on their part, but they shouldn't be doing that and then pretending that they hold the moral high ground of protecting users, when they're really protecting no one at all.

And I don't know why you're bringing this up again, DC, we've argued this together more than enough times on the Child Protection talk page.

Posted by: carbuncle

I don't waste my time arguing on that page, just remind people that no amount of argument will change a WMF-imposed policy. I can't be bothered to trawl through your contributions there, but I clearly got a different impression of what you were trying to say. If I understand you now, you are suggesting that blocking known paedophiles is bad, and that there should be a secret wikipolice who watches them instead. This sounds like a job for Tiptoety!

Posted by: gomi

You allude to another blindingly obvious point, without stating it: Wikipedia should exclude, without question or delay, anyone under the age of majority in their home country -- 18 or 21 years old, in most cases. There is absolutely no plausible argument why children should be editing an "encyclopedia". Yes, yes. I know that this argument is a non-starter.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

It is a non-starter over there, but fecking obvious too.

Posted by: melloden

The Sophie account had some connection to the McCann case off-wiki. Both were blocked as pedophiles. Hm.