It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[papaya]

Depending on whom you believe, WP:PED is either being considered for elevation to policy, or already is.

This post has been edited by papaya: Wed 30th June 2010, 5:44am

[Alison]

Matter of interest. Here are WP links to the two sites mentioned above;

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...nnabelleigh.net

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%2A.boychat.org

... just putting references out there. How many of those links, I wonder, relate to advocacy? I've not checked, but I will ...

By the way, in the pecking order, office trumps all, and arbcom trumps Jimbo, and all three of them almost always respect the will of the majority of active editors except where legal issues come into play, such as copyright or slander.

And this is *exactly* what we're seeing being trotted out on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia right now

[EricBarbour]

By the way, in the pecking order, office trumps all, and arbcom trumps Jimbo, and all three of them almost always respect the will of the majority of active editors except where legal issues come into play, such as copyright or slander.

And this is *exactly* what we're seeing being trotted out on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia right now

What a load of shit.
Wikipedia, thy name is balderdash.

You're right. Not for editors. This is not a community decision, it's a legal decision involving legal rights and responsibilities. There are limits on community consensus, and this is one of them. Minor4th • talk 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you've said this repeatedly, and it's bollocks. It doesn't bind WMF to block everyone, and more than any other Wikipedia policy does. One of the founders has said that Wikipedia has zero tolerance for paedophiles. That doesn't bind WMF to block every one either. The only way a Wikipedia admin can take action against a paedophile is if they somehow identify themselves - by self declaration, by their editing, or (and this is a real case) using the same name across a number of sites, getting thrown off other sites for pestering other members, putting up a website with their details on, and ending up with an anti-paedo watchgroup stringing it all together (yes, he REALLY was that stupid).

What I think (may be wrong) you may be thinking of is the way Facebook - and before it Myspace - was dragooned into checking its members against the various online lists of sex criminals released by the authorities. Since it is not necessary to submit personal info to edit wikipedia, there is no way anyone could do this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What is being proposed here is no different from the Terms of Service found on virtually every website, eg Facebook here: "You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory." For the purposes of Wikipedia, this would mean not doing anything that would violate State of Florida law, which pedophile activity clearly would.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"You will not use wikipedia to do anything unlawful". Meet this guy, ask some arbcom member, and see how much of a success the encyclopedia had in stopping that single threat... Hrotovice (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@Elen Oh, good. I'm glad it's bollocks, just because you say so. Your assumption is incorrect. Design your camel then. My opposition stands. And I no longer care. The Wisdom Of Crowds, eh. More like "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. WP:NPA please. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. I was waiting for some sort of retort like that. If the cap fits then by all means pick it up and wear it, though it was aimed at no particular target. But note that your use of bollocks was highly uncivil. Now I'm off to do something far more pleasurable than comment here, like stick pins in my eyes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That could make it difficult to read the statement about commenting on the edit not the editor:). You are equally welcome to say that a comment of mine is utterly wrong with whatever phrase you choose, but you may not call me stupid, even en masse (you may not call me en masse either). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, neither pedophilia is nor it's advocacy are permitted in any form. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So do we now have to start monitoring ThemFromSpace, Wnt and Fram for POV pushing?
Someone gonna pay me to do it?

(I guess that's the main problem. There are too many possible POV-pushers to deal with.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:15am