From: (Mark Pellegrini)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:05:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

OH GOD, NOT AGAIN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Pedophiles
----------

From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:37:09 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

I'm tempted to just delete it. Can anyone think of a reason not to?

Theresa
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:56:18 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

I predict it will end in warring very soon. It started by saying:

"A self-declared pedophile should generally be treated in the same
manner as as biased editor...*While it is acceptable to mention
identification as a pedophile* on one's userpage, POV editing or
advocating pedophilia on talkpages is utterly unacceptable and could,
and should, result in a '''[[WP:BLOCK|block]]'''."

and El C (!) immediately changed it to the opposite:

"*It is not acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage*.
The very act of identifying as a pedophile is [[WP:NOT|disruptive]]."

The problem is that both of these are defensible according to arbcom's
ruling: "Wikipedia is open to all" and "Userpages should not bring the
project into disrepute". A useful compromise might actually incorporate
the user page principle
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#User_pages>)
wording into [[Wikipedia:User page]] so that to "bring the project into
disrepute" (e.g. pedophile self-identification) is verboten, but the
prohibition isn't in a policy page that's aimed at banning such users
outright. And then deleting the page. Of course, it's still a can of
worms...

Dominic
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:29:03 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

By the way, the immediate stimulus of this was
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Corporate_sex_offenders.3F>,
where our old friends at Perverted-Justice meet our old friends Carnildo
and El C. *groan*

Basically, PeeJ classifies us as a "passive corporate sex offender" for
not having a ban on pedophile editors, some editors (well, only El C at
this point--"Damn straight. Pedophilic editors such as User:Clayboy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clayboy> need to be blocked on sight.
El_C <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C> 02:25, 21 February 2007
(UTC)"-- but presumably there are others) would have us ban pedophiles,
not just censor their userpages, regardless of the quality of their
edits, and others want specific content violations first.
[[User:Clayboy]] is a self-identified pedophile who actively edits
pedophilia-related articles. The good news is that everyone has already
drawn the obvious parallels and admins will probably be thinking much
more carefully before pushing their buttons this time around.

Dominic
----------

From: jdforrester (James Forrester)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 21/02/07, Dmcdevit <email> wrote:

> By the way, the immediate stimulus of this was
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Corporate sex offenders?]],
> where our old friends at Perverted-Justice meet our old friends Carnildo
> and El C. *groan*

I particularly liked this gem:

| One of you? I did not participate in a crusade. I am ?and always have been?
| an editor and admin in good standing. El_C 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which, shall we say, caused my eyebrows to raise themselves somewhat.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
---------

From: mindspillage (Kat Walsh)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:02:30 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 2/21/07, Dmcdevit <email> wrote:
> I predict it will end in warring very soon. It started by saying:
>
> "A self-declared pedophile should generally be treated in the same
> manner as as biased editor...*While it is acceptable to mention
> identification as a pedophile* on one's userpage, POV editing or
> advocating pedophilia on talkpages is utterly unacceptable and could,
> and should, result in a '''[[WP:BLOCK|block]]'''."

Oh boy. Here we go again.

> and El C (!) immediately changed it to the opposite:
>
> "*It is not acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage*.
> The very act of identifying as a pedophile is [[WP:NOT|disruptive]]."

::grumbles something about how his role in continuing the warring was
not sufficiently reocgnized last time::


Can we kill this with fire? Please?

-Kat
who is so glad not to have to hear Part II of this case
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:13:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 21/02/07, Kat Walsh <mindspillage email> wrote:

> Can we kill this with fire? Please?


I just deleted it with "um, no." I left a pointy comment on the talk
page, which is still there. I'm not sure how to properly salt a page
with the new cascading protection - if someone could please do so,
that would be good.


- d.
-----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:18:53 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

David Gerard wrote:
> On 21/02/07, Kat Walsh <mindspillage email> wrote:
>
>
>> Can we kill this with fire? Please?
>>
>
>
> I just deleted it with "um, no." I left a pointy comment on the talk
> page, which is still there. I'm not sure how to properly salt a page
> with the new cascading protection - if someone could please do so,
> that would be good.
>
>
> - d.

Basically, you just add it to
[[Wikipedia:Protected_titles/February_2007/List]] in the same format as
the others; the template transcludes it so cascading takes effect. Like
so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109847260

Dominic
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:29:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 21/02/07, Dmcdevit <email> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > I just deleted it with "um, no." I left a pointy comment on the talk
> > page, which is still there. I'm not sure how to properly salt a page
> > with the new cascading protection - if someone could please do so,
> > that would be good.

> Basically, you just add it to
> [[Wikipedia:Protected_titles/February_2007/List]] in the same format as
> the others; the template transcludes it so cascading takes effect. Like
> so:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109847260


Further on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dav...7O_common_sense

El C. is wondering if he's done a bad thing; I've given what I hope is
a sensible answer. Keeping the talk page is not so problematic IMO,
given there's no way to stop people wanting to talk about it. And WHO
KNOWS, there might be an obvious and elegant rule that just hasn't
occurred to anyone yet! Though I doubt it.


- d.
----------

From: (Essjay)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:20:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

David Gerard wrote:
> And WHO KNOWS, there might be an obvious and elegant rule that just hasn't
> occurred to anyone yet! Though I doubt it.
>
>
> - d.
>
I was thinking (in the shower no less; I can't even escape Wikipedia in
the bathroom now) that my answer (which won't see the light of day, as I
have no idea of wading into this particular issue) would be:

--
We don't ban people based on what they think; if we did, we'd all be
banned for something. We can argue well into the next eternity over
which views are valid and which aren't, but the reality is, there are a
lot of views out there, including this one, and all of them have
supporters and opponents. On Wikipedia, we don't care what your views
are, and we don't, and won't, ban anybody because they hold a particular
view. What we do care about are your actions, and if your actions cross
the line, we will take notice and we will take action. That goes for
everyone, whether they be the holders of unpopular views or people who
are unable to coexist with those who have unpopular views. Until your
views affect your actions to the point you can no longer be an effective
contributor and work with others, you are welcome here.
--

I have difficulty phrasing the application of this in a way that isn't a
bit too blunt and a bit to hostile, but in effect it is this:

If you have an unpopular view, check it at Special:Userlogin. Wikipedia
is not the place for advocating your views, it's an encyclopedia that
writes neutrally about all views. If your views are in control of your
actions to the point that you can't write neutrally and interact
appropriately and civilly with others, you will be shown the way out.

If you have no tolerance for unpopular views, check it at
Special:Userlogin. Wikipedia is not the place for crushing your enemies,
it's an encyclopedia that welcomes everyone, even the people you don't
like. If your hatred for others, regardless of how virtue-laden you
believe your pious fury is, prevents you from interacting appropriately
and civilly with others, you will be shown the way out.

To both sides: This applies equally to all contributors. It does not
matter who you are, how important you think you are, what regard you are
held in, or what titles follow your name on Special:Listusers. If you
are poisoning the atmosphere of Wikipedia with your hatred for others,
you will be shown the door without hesitation.

I think it all comes down, in the end, to being able to separate actions
from beliefs. The idea of anyone being turned on by children creeps me
out, but as long as they aren't using Wikipedia to advocate doing it, or
worse, using Wikipedia to find children to do it to, it's none of my
business. If they are doing the former, then they need to be put under
sanctions to prevent them from doing it in the future, and if that
doesn't work, they should be banned. If they are doing the latter, they
should be banned on sight. On the other hand, loving Jesus is something
I can get behind. However, if someone is using Wikipedia to advocate for
Jesus, they need to be put under sanctions to prevent them from doing it
again, and if that doesn't work, they should be banned. If their belief
in Jesus is causing them to attack others, they should be banned on
sight. The list is endless: If you like cheese, if you oppose llamas, if
you like to practice bondage involving midgets.

Put shortly and sweetly (which we all I know I suck at): Wikipedia is
about getting along with others to write a neutral encyclopedia. If you
can't do either, get out.

Ryan
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:25:40 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 21/02/07, Essjay <email> wrote:

> I have difficulty phrasing the application of this in a way that isn't a
> bit too blunt and a bit to hostile, but in effect it is this:

I think it's just what we need to say. "We don't and can't block
people for what they think, and we're not going to start."

- d.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:07:42 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

Looks like the talk page is about to become Giano v Carnildo, part 37.

Kirill
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:11:54 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Red alert...

On 21/02/07, Kirill Lokshin <email> wrote:

> Looks like the talk page is about to become Giano v Carnildo, part 37.


I thought we were only up to 19 ...


- d.
----------

From: (Mark Pellegrini)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:35:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

(CC to the rest of the arbcom)

I am wary about getting out in front of the rest of the committee on
this. I am even more wary about doing so because it could very well
provoke a witch-hunt.

With that said, I think it would be best if someone asked them privately
to discontinue self-identifying themselves as pedophiles.

-Mark


Will Beback wrote:
> R.,
>
> I was reading your comments at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dav...7O_common_sense
>
> Particularly where you stated:
> "If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. "
>
> In the past we had a number of such editors. There are still a couple of them:
> User:Clayboy
> User:Jim Burton
>
> Some inactive editors whose pages still proclaim their interest:
> User:Psychedelicfrog
> User:Zanthalon
>
> A new user probably doing it just to be shocking
> User:Vapatsy
>
> Not included above are editors who promote a pro-pedophilia POV but who don't self-identify as such.
>
> The pro-pedophile editors have caused disproportionate disruption to the project for a number of reasons. While I don't encourage a witch-hunt and while the proclamation of pedophilia on a user page may be intended to announce a POV, nonetheless there is an obvious problem with self-identifications of these types.
>
> I dont know whether it'd be better to handle these through private or public means. In the case of the inactive users it may be simplest just to blank their user pages.
>
> Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
>
> Will Beback
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:52:53 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

First, it is not pedophilia which is a criminal offense. It is sexual assault committed on a child. Pedophilia in its garden variety, finding children sexually attractive, is rather common. Research shows about 10% of the population has a strong sexual attraction to children. So perhaps 100 of our administrators are "pedophiles". But, of course, they are not, in the sense we mean here, users who make a point, on their user pages, of identifying themselves as pedophiles. This is usually combined with aggressive editing of pedophile related articles, essentially advocacy. This bring them within What Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of "pedophila" nor is it a platform for the witch hunters. That is the sound basis for banning users of either persuasion from editing in this area. A pedophila activist may or not be engaged in sexual assaults, now or in the past, on children. In most cases we have no way of knowing. What we can see is advocacy. The question is whether something short of a full arbitration proceeding can serve for suppression of such advocacy.

I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile advocate. The basis is disruption.

However, opinions may differ. What is the position of others?

Fred
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:32:16 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

On 22/02/07, Fred Bauder <email> wrote:
> What is the position of others?

There is no benefit to Wikipedia in self-identifying as someone who is
sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children (or, in the venacular
sense where ephebophilia is oft confused and conflated with
paedophilia, people under the age of 16/18/etc.); and there is a very
great disbenefit - that is, it will bring Wikipedia into disrepute and
so damage the effectiveness of our mission by negatively impacting on
our brand and so the level to which we can leverage our content to all
and sundry.

I have no problem with anyone who edits Wikipedia /being/ anything
(well, except French ;-)), but there very much /is/ a problem with
certain forms of speech - and this is one of them. In sum: Yes, Fred's
right. As is El C, or, at least, the bits of El C's comments that I've
looked at.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:56:34 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

I generally agree with James and Fred on this insofar as I believe that
it is unwise to take a principled stand that pedophilia advocates are
merely engaging in protected speech. There is a moral panic underway
in the U.S. on "Internet sexual predators" and I believe that it would
be an undue distraction from our core mission, and detrimental to our
fundrasing activities, to protect such individuals on free speech
grounds.

Some forms of activism are inherently more problematic than others, and
so I would suggest caution in appropaching this from an activism and
conflict of interest standpoint alone. I believe that the problems
posed by pediphilia advocates are unique, and for us they are more
severe than the problems posed by advocates for junk science,
recreational drugs, political causes, religions, and the like.

What to do? The only way this can be solved, long-term, IMO, is
essentially with a policy that deals with it specifically, by
disallowing pedophilia advocates (or some fairly small superset of this
group) from editing. This will result in howls of protest from the
"free speech on Wikipedia" crowd, especially the ones outside the U.S.
I would think that having the Foundation address it, in the terms of use
or a similar place, would be best, because it is going to be impossible
to get consensus for such a change on the wiki itself.

Another idea would be to permit such edits but require the editors
making them to supply their real name and address, perhaps in public,
perhaps not.

Otherwise we can continue to try and contain the damage when the
dust-ups occur. I don't believe that trying to sneak in blocks of
particular individual contributors, as Fred has done, is likely to help
in the mid- to long-term because they are spoiling for a fight and will
escalate at some point. We don't want to become partisans in any block
war that might ensue.

Steve/UC
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:13:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Agree with all the comments so far.

For practical reasons we can not let these editors advocate on our site. It
truly has the potential to cause great harm to users and the Foundation.

This needs to be handled as discreetly as possible.

Sydney
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:55:59 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:Freakofnurture]

As I predicted in IRC, this was bound to bring out our favorite trolls.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: User:Freakofnurture
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:18:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Xed Mac <xed2507>
To: jwales

Wales

Nearly seven months after you were informed that one
of your admins on Wikipedia was an active and
self-identifying pedophile, you removed his
administrator status. For being an active pedophile?
No. For disagreeing with you.

Such is your morality.

Yours,
Xed

--- Xed Mac <email> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:16:17 +0100 (BST)
> From: Xed Mac
> Subject: Re: >
> To: Jimmy Wales
>
> Wales
>
> I notice you wrote on the "List of banned users"
> talk
> page that you didn't ban me. Well, this is
> debatable.
> You could say you banned me, or you could say you
> reinstated an indefinite ban by the user
> "Freakofnurture", a proud pedophile. Pedophiles are
> obviously welcome on Wikipedia. Critics are not.
> Indeed, the pedophile in question changed the page
> after your suggestion.
>
> Thanks for clarifying your priorities. It's
> interesting who your allies are, and who you ban. It
> reveals much about Wikipedia and yourself.
>
> Yours
> Xed
>
> References:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...:Freakofnurture
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...of_banned_users
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66204127
-----------

From: jpgordon (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:34:23 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:Freakofnurture]

Why do you do anything other than bozofilter peple like him?

On 2/23/07, Jimmy Wales <email> wrote:
> As I predicted in IRC, this was bound to bring out our favorite trolls.
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:42:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:Freakofnurture]

Josh Gordon wrote:
> Why do you do anything other than bozofilter peple like him?

I can't help myself; I always listen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It remains useful as a means to guess the direction of future trolling
from various quarters.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.

I agree with this completely.

This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.

It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"

And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"

I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.

At the same time, other than that, I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:

1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:35:28 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Steve Dunlop wrote:
> What to do? The only way this can be solved, long-term, IMO, is
> essentially with a policy that deals with it specifically, by
> disallowing pedophilia advocates (or some fairly small superset of this
> group) from editing. This will result in howls of protest from the
> "free speech on Wikipedia" crowd, especially the ones outside the U.S.
> I would think that having the Foundation address it, in the terms of use
> or a similar place, would be best, because it is going to be impossible
> to get consensus for such a change on the wiki itself.

I hear you but my concern is that getting a policy through the community
would be difficult and noisy, and anything of this sort is likely to
raise press attention more than a quieter approach. Unless I am
convinced that the problem is getting worse or out of hand, I think
quietly ignoring the trolls and dropping the hammer on people who
misbehave seems effective for now.

> Otherwise we can continue to try and contain the damage when the
> dust-ups occur. I don't believe that trying to sneak in blocks of
> particular individual contributors, as Fred has done, is likely to help
> in the mid- to long-term because they are spoiling for a fight and will
> escalate at some point. We don't want to become partisans in any block
> war that might ensue.

*nod* But I am willing to act as Jimbo when necessary. My thinking
here is that specific actions in specific cases led by the wisdom and
guidance of the ArbCom and other top users acting in quiet agreement may
be better than a policy which only serves to draw attention to what is
otherwise a minor problem.

--Jimbo
-----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:31:25 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Clayboy

Clayboy is a self-identified pedophile who edits in that area. I have looked at his editing history a bit. How should we handle him?

Fred
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:57:06 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Clayboy

On 01/03/07, Fred Bauder <email> wrote:
> Clayboy is a self-identified pedophile who edits in that area. I have
> looked at his editing history a bit. How should we handle him?

As I said on IRC just now, I think, for the good of the project, we
would have to have him leave (for bringing the project into
disrepute).

Yes, not exactly pro-free-speech, but that's life. Had he neither been
outted, nor self-identified, then we could leave him be (no doubt
there are some who are in such a situation). I don't think we should
be particularly stringent on enforcement of his return if he doesn't
continue to advertise the fact, though.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:51:00 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] ArbCom


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel.Bryant
>Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 05:43 PM
>To: 'Fred Bauder'
>Subject: ArbCom
>
>I noticed your comment at RFAR instructing users about notifying Arbitrators privately regarding "self-identified pedophile[s]", in place of the discussion that was there. Two things: is this going to be common practice in the future for these kinds of incidents (I presume so, given the wording, just want to be sure)? Secondly, if this is an AC ruling on clarifications of a sensitive manner, would you like this cross-posted to AN/ANI/CN/VP/etc., either by yourself or one of the clerks?
>
>Cheers,
>
>DB

I would rather these decisions were made by the arbitration committee as a whole. As the point is to keep such matters low key, massive cross posting is inappropriate. You could help by notifying one of us by email when such controversies erupt.

Fred
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:23:17 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: ArbCom


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Bryant
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 06:11 PM
To: Fred Bauder
Subject: Re: ArbCom

Fair enough -
I'm sure any clerk will notify you or other ArbCommers when something
like this occurs again.

Cheers,

DB
-----------

From: (Daniel Bryant)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:49:07 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Pedophile referral

The Arbitration Committee,

Pursuant to your direct request, via Fred Bauder, I ask that you please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d_refactored.5D

The contents prior to that posting by me - four comments - are stored in the
history. Prior to blanking that section and leaving my note, I made a copy,
Wikimarkup included, of the topic, and sent it to Josh in a notepad file. I
trust he will forward the contents of such to the Committee as required.

The refactoring was done on the basis of the comment by Fred above,
presumably with the idea that it remains private whilst you as a Committe
decide to do with it. If such an action by me was inappropriate, please
forgive me, as I was acting in good faith.

I leave this to you, now, per your request. The user page mentioned is
deleted as I write this, however that may change.

Cheers,

Daniel Bryant
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:03:26 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status

I am deeply concerned about reinstated a self-admitted pedophile as an
administrator when we have the chance not to do so.

I will take no action either way, I just put this out as a warning for
us to consider.

Steve Dunlop wrote:
> At this point we are one vote short of a sufficient number votes to pass
> a resolution (proposed some time ago) that his administrative privileges
> be restored immediately without waiting for the case to close.
>
> The case has not closed yet. My fault, because I'm trying to work
> towards some compromise wording regarding deletion review.
>
> Steve
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status
>> From: Jimmy Wales <email>
>> Date: Tue, March 06, 2007 3:29 pm
>> To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>> What is being done about his admin status?
>>
>> Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
>>> Brad will close the Brandt wheel war case this afternoon unless there
>>> are new objections. I'm not sure what to do about Freakofnuture's
>>> admin status. In a previous case involving desysopping, the clerks
>>> were told not to contact the stewards directly but let an arbitrator
>>> do it. Will one of you contact the bureaucrats? Alternatively we
>>> could post a notice of the case on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Stop
>>> by [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard]] and leave us
>>> a note. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Tom Thatcher
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:16:21 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales
>Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 06:03 PM
>To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
>Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status
>
>I am deeply concerned about reinstated a self-admitted pedophile as an
>administrator when we have the chance not to do so.
>
>I will take no action either way, I just put this out as a warning for
>us to consider.

Ok, where and how did this occur?

Fred
----------

From:(Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:26:30 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status

From his userpage at the end of 2005:

" I don't have a self-portrait?I'm sorry. I'm on a limited budget
here. I buy my shoes one pair at a time, I can't be bothered for a
haircut, and I drive a large-bodied sedan that happens to be older than
the last girl I made it with, which (in today's world) makes me either a
pedophile or a great mechanic. If this offends you, give me a barnstar."

And:

"From time to time, I have admitted via a public IRC channel, to having
had sexual intercourse with teenage girls below the age of consent
established for the jurisdictions in which the aforementioned incidents
of sexual intercourse was stated to have occured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...:Freakofnurture

------

I think it very possible that he was not attempting to seriously
self-identify as a pedophile, but rather to simply troll and be
unhelpful during that time of crisis. It seems somewhat tongue in cheek.

But it concerns me nonetheless.
----------

From:(Matthew Brown)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:37:24 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status

I don't personally consider it that disturbing. I note that there are
several possibilities not mentioned in his statement that would
explain it:

1) He is currently under the age of consent himself (I don't see
anything on his current or former userpages that states his age)
2) He hasn't had sex since he became over the age of consent.

Most jurisdictions do not consider sex between two people who are both
under the age of consent to be a crime, or if they do, not a very
serious one. It certainly doesn't make one a pedophile (even under
the inaccurate common usage of that term).

I strongly suspect that he'd only admit such things (assuming the
admission was true) if those admissions couldn't put him in a
vulnerable position. Most if not all pro-pedophilia advocates on
Wikipedia or elsewhere are very careful never to state that they have
actually broken the law.

-Matt
----------

From:(Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:09 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Freakofnuture's status

Matthew Brown wrote:
> 1) He is currently under the age of consent himself (I don't see
> anything on his current or former userpages that states his age)
> 2) He hasn't had sex since he became over the age of consent.

Well neither of those would "in today's world" make him a pedophile.

My interpretation is slightly different, perhaps.

Perhaps he is (or was at the time) 19 and had a girlfriend who was at
the time 17. In some jurisdictions this is treated exactly the same as
a 45 year old having sex with a 12 year old.

I think that almost anyone, even those who strongly disapprove of teen
sex, would have to agree that this is not pedophilia.

(In other jurisdictions, I think there is a much more sensible approach
involving some sliding scales of some sort, i.e. defining the illegal
activity in terms of age differences when one party is lower than X
years old.)

I think the best thing is for me to simply contact freakofnurture
directly and ask the point blank questions myself. I will let ArbCom
know the result.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:02:58 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] followup on Freakofnurture

He is 24, was 22 when he wrote that. He is not a pedophile. He was
mocking the "moral panic" about pedophilia.

I have advised him that this is not funny, and that it would take very
little for him to be accidentally famous in a very bad way if he makes
jokes like that.
----------

From:(Matthew Brown)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:11:13 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] followup on Freakofnurture

Glad we got this cleared up. Unfortunately mockery can easily be
mistaken for the real thing, especially in the hands of those who'd
like to give us a bad image (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

-Matt
----------

From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:12:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] followup on Freakofnurture

We dodged a bullet.

Paul August
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:44:49 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] followup on Freakofnurture

I remember the comment. It was at the height of the userbox wheel war
and in context was an obvious troll. It was also, well, an incredibly
stupid thing to do.

Steve
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:02:36 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Pedophile referral

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Clayboy_blocked

is a bit easier to use to find more information about this.

The block was made by a rather annoying (IMHO) admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

I think that users who self-identify as pedophiles should be blocked on
sight as being disruptive to the project. Unfortunately, the (very
good) ArbCom suggestion to admins to not make a huge public spectacle
out of such cases has been interpreted as "only the ArbCom is allowed to
block these guys"... rather the opposite of what we intended.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:27:51 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Pedophile referral


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales
>Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 11:02 PM
>To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
>Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Pedophile referral
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=113018604#User:Clayboy_blocked
>
>is a bit easier to use to find more information about this.
>
>The block was made by a rather annoying (IMHO) admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson.
>
>I think that users who self-identify as pedophiles should be blocked on
>sight as being disruptive to the project. Unfortunately, the (very
>good) ArbCom suggestion to admins to not make a huge public spectacle
>out of such cases has been interpreted as "only the ArbCom is allowed to
>block these guys"... rather the opposite of what we intended.
>
>--Jimbo

I see from this:

"I was pointed to [113], which pretty much says the ArbCom needs to take a stab at it first. Due to that, the account has been unblocked by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)"

that Zscout370 unblocked only in deference to us. I have blocked him again with a message that he contact us.

Fred
-----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:24:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] My action for the unblocking of Clayboy on
en.wikipedia

Thank you,

It was unclear why you unblocked Clayboy. I was concerned that you wished to contest his blocking. Any administrator may indefinitely block a declared pedophilia activist and delete and protect their user pages. What we ask is that discussion regarding the matter be directed to us, not spread over Wikipedia.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zachary Harden
>Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 11:51 PM
>To: arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Cc: fredbaud
>Subject: My action for the unblocking of Clayboy on en.wikipedia
>
>Greetings To ArbCom,
>
>I was asked by Fred to mail you guys and state my actions for the unblocking
>of User:Clayboy.
>
>Pretty much, my unblocking of the user occurred when I saw the notice board
>posting. I mentioned the notice board posting to some other admins in the
>admin IRC channel, asking to see if this was a legit block. It was Daniel
>Bryant who told me that in order for a blocking of a self-identified
>pedophile, it must be handled by the ArbCom outside of Wikipedia and any
>blocking would come from them. For the sake of process, and to stop a
>firestorm from happening, I unblocked and let them know this is the course
>we have to take in order to discuss about this person's blocking. The
>original blocking admin agreed, and the topic was deleted (not sure if it
>was oversighted or not). I also was asked to restore the user page of
>Clayboy, but to prevent another misblocking by another admin, I kept it
>undeleted (unless yall wish to see the user page). Other than that, that was
>about it for my actions involved in this situation.
>
>Regards,
>
>Zachary Harden
>Wikipedia Admin "Zscout370"
>
>
>
>>From: Fred Bauder
>>To: Zscout370
>>Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>>Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 00:45:41 GMT
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Please contact the Arbitration Committee with respect to your unblocking of
>>Clayboy. Please do not discuss this matter on Wikipedia.
>>
>>Our email address is
>>
>>Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>>Fred
----------

From: (Jeffrey O. Gustafson)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:45:14 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's block of User:Clayboy


Per Fred's request, this email is to explain to the Committee my block of
User:Clayboy.

I was previously unaware of User:Clayboy. I came across his user page
through a link on a news gathering and commentary website, The Daily Rotten,
at www.dailyrotten.com. A permanent link to their story is at
http://forums.dailyrotten.com/218/00024146/. They had linked to a report
from The Smoking Gun website about an individual who had put up pictures of
United States Senator Barack Obama's young daughters with sexual commentary.
(see
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...l?link=rssfeed).

All of that would be completely irrelevant if the Daily Rotten hadn't
directly linked to User:Clayboy's user page, highlighting the fact that he
is a self-described pedophile and that he uses his Wikipedia user page to
publicize/express that fact.

I looked at his user page, I looked at the harm, both potential and genuine,
that his presence was causing to the Project, and I blocked him. See the
block log at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Clayboy

The block was at 07:40, 6 March 2007 UTC. One minute earlier, I put a
notice on AN/I, explaining what I had done / was about to do. The dif is
at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113015866

At 07:57, 6 March 2007 UTC I deleted User:Clayboy's user page, with the same
rationale as the block. The deletion log is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:Clayboy. I edited my own
comment at AN/I, noting the deletion, at 07:58, 6 March 2007 UTC. Dif:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113017992

At 07:58, 6 March 2007 User:ZScout370 unblocked him, citing the Committee's
clarification regarding self identified pedophiles. The link cited by
ZScout370 is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ified_pedophile.
I did not unblock, and had no intention to. As I noted in my AN/I post, the
last thing I wanted was a wheel war. ZScout370 left User:Clayboy's user
page deleted, which it still is as of this writing.

Soon after, Daniel Bryant removed the thread from AN/I citing the
Committee's clarification and desire to specifically keep such matters *off*
AN and AN/I, and he emailed the Committee the details of what had happened.

I was previously unaware of the Committee's March 1 Clarification. Had I
known, I would have expressed my concerns to the Committee rather than
blocking unilaterally and bringing the matter up on AN/I.

I only had the best interests of the Project in mind with my block and
deletion, and I stand by my actions in this case.

Jeffrey O. Gustafson
<location>, NY

P.S. As I was drafting this, Jimbo reblocked User:Clayboy.
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:33:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's block of User:Clayboy

Thank you for your prompt and effective action.

Fred
-----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:34:43 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail

Thanks, we'll take it from here.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeffrey O. Gustafson
>Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 01:14 PM
>To: fredbaud
>Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>
>Fred,
>
>Although Jimbo approved my actions (re:Clayboy), I'd imagine that the
>Committee is still mulling my actions. In light of Jimbo's block of
>Clayboy, though, I decided to see if anyone else self identified as a
>pedophile. I looked through the whatlinkshere for the pedophile article,
>and found several users who self identified as pedophile. Several of the
>pages were from hit and run editors who had no edits outside of their user
>pages, or vandals, and I just deleted those user pages (no blocks).
>
>There remain four active or semi active users who self identify as
>pedophiles:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pankkake
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silent_War
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwaur
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon - the actual operator of the
>website noted by the Smoking Gun
>
>Per the Committee's March 1st clarification, and because my prior actions
>are still under review, I have not deleted or blocked the above users/pages,
>nor brought the issue up on Wiki.
>
>Thank you for your time,
>
>Jeffrey O. Gustafson