Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

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=Wikipedia:Protected_titles/February_2007/List&diff=109862438&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=Wikipedia:Protected_titles/February_2007/List&diff=109862438&oldid=109847260


Further on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Brick_.27O_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:David_Gerard#Brick_.27O_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:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Evidence#User:Freakofnurture
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_banned_users&diff=66714917&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.

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=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=113018923#.5BThread_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:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Evidence#User: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

-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=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
----------

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/2007/0304071obama1.html?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=Special:Log&type=block&page=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=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&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=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&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=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=112683468#Clarification_regarding_a_self-identified_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

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:52:06 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Silent War: Wikipedia e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 01:42 PM
To: 'Fred Bauder'
Subject: Copy of your message to Silent War: Wikipedia e-mail

I'm sorry, but you cannot hold yourself out as a pedophile activist on Wikipedia due to the damage such activism does to Wikipedia. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely and blanked and protected your user pages. Please correspond directly with the Arbitration Committee (or Jimbo Wales) regarding these actions.

Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

Fred
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:16:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Actions taken with regard to Gustafson's list


>-----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

One passage on user page removed. Told to contact arbitration committee if he objects

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silent_War

Blocked indefinitely, user and user talk pages deleted and protected.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwaur

One userbox removed. Told to contact arbitration committee if he objects.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon - the actual operator of the
>website noted by the Smoking Gun

No email address, blocked indefinitely, user and user talk pages blanked and protected.
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:53:55 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion


-----Original Message-----
From: MacGyverMagic
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 07:04 AM
To: 'Fred Bauder'
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion

Since you deleted the discussion on ANI and told me to contact the arbcom directly, I'll repeat my question here.

Were they asked to edit the advocacy out before they were blocked? I find pedophilia gruesome, but I'm not about to support a block on constructive editors who haven't been warned. We usually give vandals more notice and they damage the reputation of Wikipedia just as much. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This relates to the deleted discussion at

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=115297495#Pedo_Purges

No, they were not warned. Both userpages had extensive material which identified the users as pedophiles. Here is the content of User:Silent War's now deleted userpage:

Who am I?

What am I?

Two questions I have asked for so long that I never imagined that I'd find an answer. Let me begin by saying I am 17, I live in New Zealand, I am studying computer sciences and mathmatics, and I frequent any number of online games, chats and forums. I like a broad range of music, from emo-rock to rap and ballads.

And, as any who know me by this alias know, I am a [[pedophilia|pedophile]], mainly a [[Childlove movement|girllover]]. However, I have never, and never will, abuse a child or break any laws surrounding intimacy with children.

Although I have made a number of annonymous edits, or edited under another alias, I think this profile will allow me a fresh start in order to focus on what articles truely matter to me.

==What's in a name?==

I feel that because of the fears and stigma associated with our orientation, virtually none of us will vocalise our concerns or campaign for our cause. We will often use "silent" media such as E-mail or letters instead of vocally and/or dramaticly for our protests or requests.

Because of the fierce opposition to what we beleive in and strive for, it seems to me that what we face is not just a single battle for our hopes and dreams, but a long and painful "war" that our foes show little to no sign of ending.

The name was inspired by a song by a New Zealand band, [[Blindspott]], entitled "Ilah (silent war)", and I think that the lyrics suit how many of us feel about our situation.

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

Here is the content of User:Zanthalon's now deleted user page:

Hi.

Zanthalon is a fictitious inter-galactic empire I created during the days of my youth (in the mid-[[1980s]]) when I was heavily into [[Role_playing_game|role-playing games]]. I chose it for my nick here because I imagined that it would be original.

==Pedophilia==

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 [[pedophilia|pedophile]], a [[Childlove movement|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.

==[[William_Blake|Blake's]] Quatrain==

A personal favourite:

<i>This life's dim windows of the soul<br>
Distort the heavens from pole to pole<br>
And lead us to believe a lie<br>
When we look '''with''', not '''through''', the eye</i>

==A Quote from <i>Runaway Horses</i>==

"The law is an accumulation of tireless attempts to block a man's desire to change life into an instant of poetry. Certainly it would not be right to let everybody exchange his life for a line of poetry written in a splash of blood. But the mass of men, lacking valour, passed away their lives without ever feeling the least touch of such a desire. The law, therefore, of its very nature is aimed at a tiny minority of mankind. The extraordinary purity of a handful of men, the passionate devotion that knows nothing of the world's standards?the law is a system that tries to degrade them to "evil", on the same level as robbery and crimes of passion."

--[[Yukio Mishima]]

==OfficialWire==

A few comments about Alfred Cunningham's article of 13 December 2005 on ''OfficialWire''. Cunningham wrote:

<blockquote>"One user, who goes by the name of Zanthalon, writes on his profile, "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." '''He then goes on to add the standard disclaimer that is echoed by many convicted child molestors''', "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"."</blockquote>

For the record, I will say that I have never been convicted of child molestation or any other offense.

==My Identity==

As it is obvious that I may not convince anybody of my innocence whilst hiding behind the name Zanthalon, I have no choice but to reveal my true identity. As some here have already speculated, in real life I am [[Lindsay Ashford]].

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

The reason they were indefinitely blocked was not because they were unreasonable or impolite, or the way they edited. It was their presence, together with their declarations, which was damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. There was nothing to discuss. And nothing they could do in response to a warning which would cure the situation. Whatever they did, they would continue to be identified pedophiles editing Wikipedia.

Your suggestions as to how to handle this sort of user is welcome in this forum. Please don't start a discussion on Wikipedia. My theory is that zero tolerance without process is the most effective strategy. Well, maybe not zero tolerance, that same day I removed a userbox with the pink pedophile symbol, girllover, from one users userpage and a short declaration of pedophilia from another's and warned the users. These two had a much more activist posture.

Fred
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:02:46 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] The Pedo Purge

=== The Pedo Purge ===
: '''Initiated by ''' [[User:Chris Croy|Chris Croy]] '''at''' 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|David.Monniaux}}
*{{userlinks|Fred Bauder}}
*{{userlinks|Zanthalon}}
*{{userlinks|Silent War}}
*{{userlinks|Rookiee}}
*{{userlinks|Chris Croy}}

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
On March 15th, I made a post on Administrative Noticeboard/Incidents [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=115261340 here]. [[Jersey Devil]] declared the case resolved and did what I should've remembered to do: Make a note on Fred Bauder's page. Fred read the incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115300216&oldid=115297495 and then deleted it]. An anon ip [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115300848&oldid=115300216 reverted Fred], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115301345&oldid=115300848 re-added his comments], and then Fred [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115301633&oldid=115301345 wiped the discussion again], leaving behind the same comment about bringing the issue up directly with ArbCom. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115342667&oldid=115342595 asked Fred to explain his actions]. Once again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=115352166&oldid=115349577 Fred wiped the discussion]. He left identical comments on the talk page of everyone involved asking us to bring the issue up directly with ArbCom and nowhere else. He has made it clear that he will only answer to ArbCom.

==== Statement by Chris Croy ====
I do not know if it's proper for an uninvolved party to bring a case before ArbCom. I'm doing so because I don't know if the wronged users will do so themselves.

On March 7th, Fred Bauder indefinitely blocked both Zanthalon and Silent War. Fred proceeded to wipe the history of their user and talk pages, replace both with a period and protect the lot of them. In all cases, the justification given was "Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia, please contact Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee". I believe he banned them because they are self-admitted pedophiles. I'm well aware of how hated pedophiles are. What I'm not aware of is a policy allowing any editor to be banned if a member of ArbCom deems their continued existence to be 'damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia'.

As I was preparing this, I researched Rookiee's banning as best I could. His banning may have also been part of a witchhunt, but it's difficult for me to say. He was banned for something on his userpage but because its history has been deleted I cannot agree or disagree with David.Monniaux's actions.
==== Statement by party 2 ====

==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:17:52 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] The Pedo Purge

All parties have been notified by Wikipedia e-mail with the exception of Zanthalon, who did not provide an email address.

Fred
----------

From: (wiki.20.chriscroy)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:38:48 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] The Pedophile Purges
Message-ID: <6eb689710703151838s48365a00qcd87412f498ec8e@mail.gmail.com>

Fred Bauder said I should "direct all correspondence regarding the
matter directly to the committee." I'm not sure what is wanted from
me, so here's the deal from the top.

On March 15th, I made the following post to the Administrative
Noticeboard/Incidents page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=115261340#Pedo_Purges

There is one thing I would change about my post. I now strongly
suspect that Rookiee's blocking was improper. Of course, I have no
way of confirming his claim(He was blocked solely for adding a link to
his personal home page) or that of the blocker (continues using WP as
a personal home page for advocacy purposes despite numerous warnings)
because the blocker, David.Monniaux, also removed the userpages'
history.

Fred Bauder's response to the incident report is chronicled under the
RFA I attempted to make, under the section on 'other attempts at
dispute resolution have already been tried'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=115400924

In short, he repeatedly deleted my incident report and the comments
others made, replacing everything with a request to please direct all
complaints directly to ArbCom. Also, I'd like to note that I did not
include under 'Dispute Resolution' that Rookiee disputed his block, it
was reviewed by Doc glasgow, and Doc decided it was proper. For
future reference, should I have done so?

I decided to flow with it and go to ArbCom. I started a case (see
above) and scampered off to inform everyone. I informed Fred Bauder
and David.Monniaux on their talk pages and emailed Zarthalan and
Silent War. I attempted to contact Rookiee but the only email address
I could find for him bounced my email. I went back to update the page
to say that I had informed everyone to the best of my abilities and
discovered that Newyorkbrad had deleted my ArbCom. He said it was
Fred's Will that I email my incident directly to an ArbCom member.

So I picked an ArbCom member at random(Mackensen) and wikimailed him
everything that's happened. Shortly thereater, Fred gave me the
address for the Arbcom mailing list and said to direct all
correspondence there.

That brings us to now.

I have one question I'd really like answered: Why aren't we doing this
in a public forum?
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:19:41 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] The Pedophile Purges


>I have one question I'd really like answered: Why aren't we doing this
>in a public forum?

It turns into a big mess, with a lot of vehement declarations about principle, one way then the other, while the problem of pedophiles apparently being welcome on Wikipedia remains unsolved.

Fred
----------

From: (David Monniaux)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:01:18 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David Monniaux
>>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 08:27 PM
>>To: 'Fred Bauder'
>>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>>
>>I see that I'm mentioned in this complaint, yet the reason why I appear
>> is
>>somewhat unclear. Can you please enlighten me?
>
> Apparently you blocked Rookiee

Yes, but the fact that I blocked Rookiee does not seem to be mentioned in
that complaint. If I understand correctly, the person is arguing that
people opposing what they claim is a "pedo purge" have been blocked from
discussing the issue. I've not been involved in any such blocking.

I'm anyway somewhat surprised that a complaint should be filed on this
issue after months and months have elapsed. While the general traits of
the case are still in my mind, some of the details now escape me; besides,
I'm busy - Real Work ™, Wikimedia France business, etc.

In any case, here's what I think about the issue, should the ArbCom be
interested:

User:Rookiee used to have a user page in which he (or she, but the Rookie
character seemed to be male) pointed out his pedophile tastes and, if I
remember correctly, engaged in discussion on the issue as well as advocacy
against the general hostility that societies feel against pedophiles.

Wikipedia is not a general hosting provider; user pages are supposed to
list particularities of users that are relevant to article writing, as
opposed to personal tastes and advocacy on societal issues. User
discussion pages are supposed to be for settling matters related to
Wikipedia, and not matters related to the user's personal tastes.

Advocacy on issues having a direct, general impact on Wikipedia (e.g.
freedom of expression on the Internet, copyright terms, etc.) could be
understandable, but I fail to see how pedophilia and tolerance for
pedophiles fits in there.

Thus, Rookiee had been warned several times, by several people, that his
pages were "borderline", and had been blocked previously for the matter,
as far as I remember.

I realize that there are many "user boxes" out there that are in no way
related to Wikipedia editing. I've always opposed this evolution, which
turns Wikipedia user pages into a kind of MySpace, partly because, to
outsiders, the separation between article space and user space, as well as
the obligation to be "neutral" and not push personal tastes into articles,
are unclear. These "user boxes" and other personal claims thus give to
outsiders the impression that Wikipedia users are continuously waging
battles of point of view, which is I think not the case on the majority of
articles.

One of my concerns about this abuse of user pages was that one day, some
really egregious user page would come to the attention of the media,
"egregious" meaning a page openly advocating some attitude or acts that
many find reprehensible. This was the case with Rookiee's page: some
vigilante group, called "Perverted Justice", began to raise a fuss and to
pretend that Wikipedia openly welcomed pedophiles.

To summarize:

* Using user pages to advocate societal changes, displaying personal
tastes unrelated to Wikipedia, etc. does not fit within the basic usage of
Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, according to its bylaws, supports
"educational" content; user pages displaying issues unrelated to Wikipedia
are therefore of dubious relevance.

* However, user pages with content unrelated to Wikipedia are, in general,
tolerated. Tolerances are things that are, strictly speaking, not "within
the rules" but that governments, companies etc. let go, as a convenience,
as long as they do not prove too much of a problem. It thus seems logical
that tolerances can be withdrawn when they prove to be a problem.

* We have a policy against disturbing Wikipedia to make a point. I think
that Rookie was deliberately "pushing the envelope" on Wikipedia in order
to make a point unrelated to Wikipedia (societal tolerance of pedophilia).

* The "Perverted Justice" group had started an action, calling people,
probably sending out press releases, claiming that Wikipedia and other
companies tolerated open advocacy of pedophilia on their sites, citing
Rookie's page. As everybody knows, Wikipedia already has more than its
share of bad "PR". The Wikimedia Foundation then began receiving complaint
emails on OTRS.

After some discussion with other OTRS people, including JWales, I decided
to block Rookie and clean up his user page before the PR mess became
unmanageable.

I still don't know if Rookie was for real, or was merely an agent
provocateur that Perverted Justice or others planted in Wikipedia to test
the system...
----------

From: morven(Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:23:35 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail


On 3/15/07, David Monniaux <email> wrote:
> I still don't know if Rookie was for real, or was merely an agent
> provocateur that Perverted Justice or others planted in Wikipedia to test
> the system...

I personally strongly suspect real; the Perverted Justice people have
a strong agenda but seem to have no trouble finding the real thing
without needing to manufacture it themselves. I remember Usenet et
al. in the early 90s, where pedophilia apologists and childlove
advocates were quite findable and open about it.

It's possible that it's someone who was more interested in stirring
the pot of controversy rather than real action, however.

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

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:53:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion


>-----Original Message-----
>From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 06:24 AM
>To: fredbaud
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion
>
>Fred, did you make these blocks on your own accord? I would assume that if
>Jimbo was involved, he'd put WP:OFFICE onto it, and there was no mention of
>that in your block summary.
>
Jimbo had made statements regarding the matter, but I did this myself.

Fred
>
>I believe that deleting their userpages would also have been an acceptable
>solution.
>We already have plenty of safeguards in place to protect kids, so there's no
>way they can use Wikipedia to contact them and if they wanted to do this
>(illegal, of course), they'd never reveal themselves in the first place.
>
>If I remember correctly, we also have convicted criminals editing Wikipedia.
>If they can do so constructively, I think blocking them just because of
>public opinion is bad for Wikipedia.
>It loses good editors.
>
>Blocking people because of their sexual or political preference is a bad
>thing.
>
>Mgm
>
In the United States there are many millions of convicted criminals, so obviously that is so. I can't recall any user ever saying on their user page that they were a convicted criminal or discussing the crime they committed in positive terms such as "I am a convicted rapist. My blog is at ripper.com." In fairness to our avowed pedophiles, they always declare that they would never hurt a child.

I think we may gain some good editors also, if we make it very clear that advocacy of pedophilia is not acceptable. The problem is, we are taking damage, without receiving anything good back in terms of our mission.

Fred
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:13:09 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Brown [morven]
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:23 PM
>To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
>Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail
>
>On 3/15/07, David Monniaux <email> wrote:
>> I still don't know if Rookie was for real, or was merely an agent
>> provocateur that Perverted Justice or others planted in Wikipedia to test
>> the system...
>
>I personally strongly suspect real; the Perverted Justice people have
>a strong agenda but seem to have no trouble finding the real thing
>without needing to manufacture it themselves. I remember Usenet et
>al. in the early 90s, where pedophilia apologists and childlove
>advocates were quite findable and open about it.
>
>It's possible that it's someone who was more interested in stirring
>the pot of controversy rather than real action, however.
>
>-Matt

Rookiee's website: http://rookiee.blogspot.com/

Zanthalon's website: http://www.puellula.org/

Fred
---------

From: (Anon E. Mouse)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion


All right, sending by email.
Questions and/or requests:

1) We really need a policy page that says what the
policy here is explicitly. Just statements from a
single arbitrator aren't good enough. Otherwise NYB
and friends are deleting info on what is essentially
one person's say so - a very respected person's say
so, but still, that's not how we do things around
here.

2) On that page, could you please specify how "deep"
and how "broad" does this go? In other words, which of
the following must be deleted:
2.1) Advocacy of pedophilia
2.1A) in an article
2.1B) on a user page
2.1C) on an article talk page
2.2) Discussion of pedophilia
2.2A) in an article
2.2B) on a user page
2.2C) on an article talk page
2.3) Discussion of advocacy of pedophilia (such as I
imagine we also have in our article on Pedophilia) A-C
2.4) Discussion of the removal of 2.1A-C
2.5) Discussion of the removal of 2.2A-C
2.7) Discussion of the removal of 2.3A-C
and so forth.
This sounds ridiculous, of course, but it's what
actually happened. By deleting my comments on Fred's
talk page, and writing me this email, it seems the
policy includes (deep breath...):
Removing discussion (mine) of the removal of an
arbitration request (by Newyorkbrad) about the removal
of discussion (Chris's) about the removal of
discussion about pedophilia (by Fred) from a user page
(I don't even remember whose now). At least 4 levels
deep!

3) Whom do we go to for questions? Note that the
advice Brad has been giving is not the same as the one
I just got - Brad has been writing to email "an
arbitrator", but some are inactive, some are possibly
uninformed, some are potentially biased, we can't just
ask people to pick one and hope they get a good one,
especially since the conversation takes place
invisibly to everyone else. If the real answer is to
email the whole arbcom list, as I'm doing here, then
please say that, on the policy page.

4) ... This one you don't absolutely have to put on
the policy page, but would help. What is going here?
Why?

An Anon E Mouse Wikipedia editor

-- Fred Bauder <email> wrote:

> Please send all correspondence with concerns
> advocacy of pedophilia or actions taken regarding
> advocacy of pedophilia directly to the arbitration
> committee. Please do not post such material on any
> forum on Wikipedia.
>
> The address of the arbitration committee is
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Incoming mail comes through.
>
> Fred
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:41:03 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion

Thank you for your thoughtful questions, forwarded to the committee.

Fred
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:00:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion

Your questions should help us think through all the ramification of this matter. What I did is ban two users who identified themselves as pedophiles on their user pages. In both instances the user pages contained extensive material, including in one case, the user's real name and a link to their blog. The other was a rather innocent sounding 17 year old kid. Two other users were warned after a userbox and declaration of pedophilia were removed.

The actions originated in a request for clarification made by another user and posted on requests for arbitration. I replaced the request for clarification by a notice to contact the arbitration committee directly with such problems. I then looked at the situation with the four users and took what I think is appropriate action.

So my position is that if there is a complaint about a user holding themselves out as a pedophile that should be communicated directly to the arbitration committee rather than being discussed at length in a public forum. Likewise if an administrator has blocked a user holding themselves out as a pedophile, complaints about that action should be forwarded to the arbitration committee rather than being discussed at length in a public forum.

As your questions reveal, such a policy could be extended to a number of other questions, doing such things as analyzing editing to articles, such as [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]]. Way too far I think.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anon E. Mouse [email]
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 08:56 AM
>To: fredbaud
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion
>
>Thank you for your prompt and kind response.
>I certainly don't want to turn WP into a forum for
>advocating pedophilia, and if you can come up with a
>written policy about what needs to be deleted I'll
>happily join NYB and company in enforcing it. You may
>remember I was one of the (admittedly many) people
>pushing for WP:CHILD, and that was just about kids
>posting contact info. I just want the policy to be out
>there, explicitly, written down, and to make sense,
>not
>"don't talk about this, and don't even talk about
>talking about this".
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:30:22 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion

No, his comments were on this list, but he reads this list and may respond to you.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [email]
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:55 AM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion
>
>Could you point me to Jimbo's words on the matter?
>
>Mgm
-----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:20:18 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anon E. Mouse [email]
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:48 AM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion
>
>Thanks. That makes me personally feel a lot better.
>
>I still think
>1) we need an actual policy to refer to, and
>2) I worry about "email an arbitrator". The 15 of you
>really aren't interchangeable.

The thing is that anyone can email the list, Arbitration Committee mailing list address:

arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org

There has been reluctance to publish that address, due to possible misuse or overuse. You are certainly right. It is easy to pick an inactive arbitrator and I notice in this discussion that almost all mail is coming directly to me, as this email did, rather than being directed to the list.

>You can say "ask an admin" for things like speedy
>deletion requests because actions are visible. If one
>admin screws up blocking a user, or protecting or
>deleting an article (which we do at times!), at least
>1000 other admins can see basically all the steps in
>the process, and another admin can reverse the action,
>so this usually will happen. If "an arbitrator" should
>happen to make a mistake, there will be many fewer
>people that can reverse, and if in addition, the
>reasoning for the actions won't be visible, it will be
>much harder to properly review.

Not, really, as you are guaranteed a direct line to the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrator is expected to explain things to the rest of the committee and we are able to view the actions taken. Basically these sort of matter should be viewed as always under review. In other words, a open case.

>Not that I'm saying I have a complete solution to
>problem 2, mind. Maybe make it officially "mail the
>arbcom list" so at least all 15 of you can see what's
>going on, that would at least be something. But I can
>hope for at least a policy page for problem 1! :-)

Attempts at making policy in this area have not been happy, the discussion tends to turn into a row. As to mail the list, we would have to make a decision to openly publish the address.

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

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:24:35 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Removal of Pedophilia discussion

On 16/03/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud> wrote:

> Attempts at making policy in this area have not been happy, the discussion tends to turn into a row. As to mail the list, we would have to make a decision to openly publish the address.


The address is in no way a secret; it's just not expressly advertised.


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

From fredbaud at waterwiki.info Fri Mar 16 22:31:26 2007
From: fredbaud at waterwiki.info (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:31:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Pedophile Purges
Message-ID: <W8426822788311311174084286@webmail24>


-----Original Message-----
From: wiki.20.chriscroy[email]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 03:32 PM
To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] The Pedophile Purges

On 3/15/07, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> >I have one question I'd really like answered: Why aren't we doing this
> >in a public forum?
>
> It turns into a big mess, with a lot of vehement declarations about principle, one way then the other, while the problem of pedophiles apparently being welcome on Wikipedia remains unsolved.
>
> Fred
>
>
Ok. Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding this.

You've decided to start holding secret trials for unwritten rules
because the people would make a big fuss and have a discussion if you
held them in public?

For a man who complains about stalinist oppression on his user page,
you sure seem to enjoy engaging in it.

Chris
----------

From: puellula (Lindsay Ashford)
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:50:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Arbitration

I think that this deletion, along with several other actions on Wikipedia
is absolutely irrational. I have never done anything to 'damage the
reputation' of Wikipedia. I have contributed to articles in order to
present a controversial opinion, but have always striven to present a
neutral point of view.

On the other hand, there have been numerous participants on Wikipedia who
have slandered me and falsely accused me who have never been punished,
even when these things have been brought to the attention of
administrators here.

Why this double standard???

Lindsay Ashford (Zanthalon)

--
puellula.com/puellula.org

On Thu, March 15, 2007 7:11 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote on Friday, 16 March, 2007 at 01:11:26:
>
> An arbitration request has been filed which affects you. Please respond
> directly to the arbitration committee at
>
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Please do not conduct a discussion of this matter on any open Wikipedia
> forum, or respond to or attempt to delete attempt to discuss by others.
>
> Fred
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:45:02 +0900
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Pedophilia discussion

MacGyverMagic/Mgm <email>
> Blocking people because of their sexual or political preference is a bad
> thing.

To be clear, I agree with this in general. Blocking people for
*advocating* things is quite a different matter, but even here I have
always thought we should take a slow and gentle approach.

There are several competing concerns here, of course. The simplest
thing is "disruption". Drawing lines is hard, but there is no way to
avoid drawing lines, and it is our sad heavy burden to be the people who
have to do it.

I refuse to go public with a statement that "Wikipedia welcomes
self-identified pedophiles as editors as long as they follow our
neutrality policies". But my preference is that we apply quiet
diplomacy (and pressure where necessary) to keep that question from ever
being raised in the first place.

At the same time, I am not willing that we should have a witch hunt for
pedophiles or anyone else. Nor that we state, categorically,
"pedophiles are not allowed to edit wikipedia" -- I see no benefit to
such a public stance.

In the meantime, what I think we need to do is be very careful here, and
*especially* be quiet and thoughtful. "Disruption" and "trolling" are
sufficiently vague reasons to block people. So far we have not had the
case of the magically wonderful pedophile who adheres to all policies
without trouble and writes up an inoffensive userpage other than a brief
statement of self-identification without advocacy. I think that is
likely to continue.

As we see from the daily stream of idiotic stories about wikipedia, it
takes very little to provoke a scandal. If forced to do so... that is
to say... if the activities on wikipedia of pedophiles seems to be
causing disruption in the form of a public scandal... then I will block
them all personally on my own, and hope that I still have the social
power to make that stick.

I am not an advocate of "don't ask, don't tell" in the US military. I
think it is a bad policy in that case. But in OUR situation it seems to
me to be just about right. We don't care what people are doing outside
Wikipedia, but we do care about their behavior *in* wikipedia, including
advocacy behavior on userpages which tends to disrupt the encyclopedia.

I recommend that we move slowly, thoughtfully, and in search of a
reasonable middle ground.

--Jimbo

Posted by: RMHED

It's easier to nail jelly to a wall than to get Jimmy Wales to make a tough decision.

No, he just loves that fence, it's oh so comfortable.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Now that we know what Santorums and Lewinskys are, what would a Jimbo be?


Never miss the chance to point out to the inner circle that you think less of people outside it. Nice example to set for your volunteers, Jimmy.

A lot of what's in this discussion makes it look like ArbCom is more of a sounding board for Jimbo than the other way around. The ArbCommies look pretty naive here.

Posted by: Silver seren

You know, this proves what i've been saying for the longest time, that WP:Child protection (T-H-L-K-D) is not about protecting children at all, but stopping the project from "coming into disrepute". Funny, Jimbo has done the latter handily enough already, with the whole porn thing and other issues that he's started.

Posted by: lilburne

They can't protect kids on a site set up like WP. At best they can point to a set of policies, but they will always fall foul of the NOTCENSURED brigade. And they will always be subject to attacks that it is a nest of child molesters. Remeber when LJ removed all the porn?



Nope. The impression of deleting the porn helps to improve the reputation. Most of WP is written by 15-24 yo. For parents "Joe is writing for an encyclopaedia" is far more likely to be approved than "Joe is writing for an online porn site".

Posted by: carbuncle

While the main intent of that policy may be to have something to point at when the media come calling, it provides a basis for blocking at least the most obvious cases. Personally, I find the idea of paedophiles using WP to find kids to be a bit of a stretch, but there is no doubt at all that it is used to try to normalize adult-child relationships. I think Jimbo deserves credit for his support of the policy and for getting the WMF to make a statement reinforcing it.