Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Counterproductive to ban anyone who "self-identifies as a pedophile"

I'm disappointed that the policy explicitly says that any editor who simply "self-identifies as a pedophile" will be indefinitely blocked. I think it's counterproductive, in the same way that WP:CORPNAME is counterproductive: by forbidding editors from identifying themselves as pedophiles, we only drive them underground and make them harder to identify, and make it easier for pedophiles to slip under the radar by making only marginally questionable edits to the encyclopedia. I think we would be better off as a project, and better able to police the encyclopedia, by striking that clause from the policy. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is advocacy, because it assumes the act is acceptable. We should not allow pedophiles to use wikipedia to push their viewpoint that endangers children.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Twp, you'll have to take that one up with the WMF and Jimbo. The policy is that advocacy will get you blocked and self identification will be blocked. Actually, as I have said repeatedly, people are not blocked for sticking "I love little girls" in their userboxen. All the latest subjects who were not pov warriors were blocked following identification by one of the internet alert sites. These guys focus on members of known paedophile forums, and try to track them across other websites - Wikisposure is one, but there are several others. In these cases, the individuals have already self identified as committing offences against children (Wikisposure's cut of point seems to be around 12), or seeking to commit offences against children, so as far as I am concerned, these are guys you definitely don't want hanging around your encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Myspace runs regular sweeps against online databases of child abusers set up by Interpol and the FBI. MySpace evicted about 10,000 child abusers the first time it ran the sweep. There was a suspicion that they had all joined Facebook, and facebook was pressurized for a year to run the same checks. Wikipedia cannot do that because it collects no information about the real identities of individuals, so warnings from the internet alerters at Mumsnet etc is the best we can do.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this policy comes down from WMF and that commenting here is unlikely to get it changed, but I would still like to have a conversation about whether the policy as written is an effective way to achieve its goals. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• How do you propose that this will "better police the encyclopedia"? Who will check all of the user's edits to ensure that they don't cross the line into advocacy? And how do you propose to prevent them from establishing off-wiki contact with minors using the "Email this user" feature, which can only be disabled via block? How does one keep them off articles where younger editors may interact with them, click their userpage to see a self-identification, and then be scared to continue participating here? Self-identification is inherently disruptive, and adversely affects the project. Risker (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, whatever way you cut the cake, allowing active pedophiles to have access to Wikipedia site facilities is unacceptable. Blocking policy would also take into account off-wiki activities, where some people are quite open about what they want to do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no question about whether we "allow" active pedophiles to edit Wikipedia. We have no way to prevent it. What we have done is to adopt a policy forbidding people from telling us that is what they are doing. How is that going to make it easier to keep them off Wikipedia? Tim Pierce (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We prevent it by blocking them when they self-identify, send e-mails that get reported, or advocate on talk pages. Your philosophy is akin to unblocking all vandals so that we can monitor them since we can't seem to stop vandalism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting analogy. Do you think that a policy of blocking anyone who merely self-identifies as a "Wikipedia vandal" would help to reduce vandalism on Wikipedia? If so, why haven't we adopted such a policy? Tim Pierce (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because a vandal is identified by actions on wikipedia. They are blocked on sight. If someone has a userbox that says they are a vandal, it is most likely a joke if it doesn't match up with their wikipedia actions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: the concern is how the person uses Wikipedia. If a person is using wikipedia to vandalize articles, or as a forum in which to attempt to normalize pedophilia, by all means, apply an indefinite block. I do not see how blocking a user based strictly on whether they have described themselves as a pedophile makes that easier, and many ways in which it makes it harder. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they could seek children via the "e-mail this user" function, which is not monitored.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand at all. Are you saying that this policy prevents a pedophile from contacting a child on Wikipedia via Special:EmailUser? By what mechanism? In what way would it become easier for a pedophile to do this if the self-identification policy were relaxed? Tim Pierce (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they will be blocked from editing and e-mailing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, only people who have identified themselves as pedophiles will have been blocked from editing and e-mailing. After a few minutes they will go in, create another account, carefully not identify themselves as a pedophile, and return to what they were doing. Nothing will have changed, except that we will be somehow convinced that we have done something to address the problem, and perhaps Fox News will be placated for the time being. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Allow them to identify so that we can monitor them (which we can't since we can't monitor e-mails)? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already suggested an alternative: that we drop the "self-identification" clause from this policy. That we simply not pretend that we have the ability to prevent pedophiles from using Wikipedia. Block users based on their behavior, not what they identify as. It is the worst kind of security theater: at best it is useless, and at worst it may lull people into a false sense of security. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So you believe that we should not block known pedophiles, and allow for them to contact children via e-mail? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we cannot prevent "known pedophiles" from creating Wikipedia accounts and contacting children via e-mail, and we should not pretend otherwise. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As 71.139 points out, saying you are a paedophile would be very disruptive, because I would be trying to get you blocked, and if we didn't have a policy that said you would be blocked, I would be plastering "Timbo is a child molester" all over Wikipedia until one or both of us was blocked, and the Mumsnet raiders would turn up, and you would appear on all the internet alert sites, and someone would start a facebook campaign to get you removed, and so on and so forth. So even if you weren't dangerous, you would be very disruptive.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you say you were a paedophile, unless you thought this was a safe haven, you wanted to attract others like you, you wanted to disrupt the project to prove a point, etc. Put 'Paedophile' in your userboxen and you are instantly going to attract disruption - no matter what the reason you put it up - because you're instantly going to have me demanding that you are blocked. Regardless, there's no scope for arguing about it. This is a WMF policy and not subject to consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor who has reason to believe that another editor is using site facilities for this type of activity can report the matter to ArbCom. No policy is infallible, but the wording and intention are clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be pointed out that Pedophila is not child sexual abuse or child pornography; it is individuals who are diagnosed as pedophiles will not necessarily act on them. Moreover, editors may see that users disclose personal information about themselves and may decide to do the same about their condition. It may even just come up on a talk page when discussing a controversial treatment as someone may say that they learned about it while in therapy. I'm not psychologist so I don't pretend to know about how permanent or controllable the condition is, but I do tend to play devil's advocate and give the benefit of doubt. I still feel that this policy needs some WP:AGF built into it so it doesn't turn into a witch hunt. —Ost (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that from the perspective of this policy, the above is not relevant. There is zero tolerance for paedophiles on Wikipedia - the prospect of AGF does not exist. At the same time, if there are paedophiles who do not act on their condition (and I'm not getting into that argument again), then they are not at risk of hitting the radar of the alert groups, and the safest thing for them to do is just to shut up. It appears to be the considered opinion of the WMF and the Founder that the risk of losing an interesting insight is many times outweighed by the risk to the individual, to children and to the project, if they pipe up. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that zero-tolerance for anything is unnecessarily broad. There are always exceptions or people naive to policy and that is why I believe that one should AGF. I understand who has decided this policy and why they believe it, but that doesn't meant that I have to blindly support it in full or keep silent about my concerns; I just have to follow it and make sure it is followed by others. Those who this policy impacts can't speak up, so someone should. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't repeat my comment from the above section but I propose that we clarify why someone is blocked whether I agree with the reasoning or not. I feel "users who self-identify are blocked because of the near guarantee of disruption that will occur either by them or to them". I don't think we should spell out we assume them to be advocates or pushing POV because I think that's unprovable and doesn't matter because the point is the disruption. I also feel a sentence should be added that "as Wikipedia doesn't collect personal information and anyone can freely edit here, users are judged to be advocating if they self-identify or are editing in an advocacy manner". Personally I disagree with some of this but if that aligns with current policy then it would be more helpful to explain more of why self-identification is forbidden, ie. intent is implied with self-disclosure. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a thought, and as I said above, I agree that self identification on the pedia is always going to cause disruption, even if that was not the intention. But I wonder if it would result in any less discussion, and also it does not deal with the more common scenario these days, where the self identification was by joining www.littlegurlluv.net and posting about how one's ambition is to have sex with a six year old. The other reason we need this policy is so that if one of the Mumsnet raiders identifies a child abuser, we know what to do about it, and avoid an unholy row in the process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why I feel we should expand some to point out that disclosure equals disruption intended or otherwise, full stop. This includes self-disclosure and identifying someone else, especially of you are mistaken. Even joking is likely to cause problems. Anyone who needs more explanation should be referred to whoever is fielding inquiries. I agree with the sentiment above that someone who is a pedofiliac (sorry I'm not up on the spellings) could edit here but they can't disclose this information because it has proven to be disruptive. Statistically we certainly do have some and logically there is no way to prevent someone with the disease to edit here. Therefore we apply existing structures to minimize disruption. 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.2.170 (talk)

It already says that accusing another editor on-wiki may result in a block - because it is disruptive, so I'm not quite sure what change of wording you are envisaging. Perhaps you could set out here what your potential change might say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing it but I do not see "disruption" anywhere. I feel it would be more helpful for all concerned to emphasize that disruption is one of the core reasons for blocking those who disclose that themselves or another editor is pedofiliac. And place it on or near the first sentence if possible. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And now, I hope everyone understands why the policy is the way it is. It's not because Jimbo and the Committee want to grab more power, or make policy, or sidestep the community. It's to avoid this kind of situation.Let me make it clear. Do not accuse other editors publicly of advocacy, or what have you. It has on Wikipedia effects, and can have grave off-Wikipedia effects as well. Don't do it. Period. If you have concerns or full-fledged issues, email the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be misreading you but are you stating you agree with my take that it's disruption and making that clear would benefit everyone? 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm stating that editors and administrators should not label some one an advocate or an actual pedophile. That if they have concerns or proof, that they should be emailing the Committee and not making it public. Making such comments (with whatever level of proof you provide) on Wikipedia is not to be done. This was made clear in the recent block of an editor for comments he made that questioned another user on those issues. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you don't want to go down that road, although if the policy was written as clear as it is now I would not have done it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And that's another good reason to block people who have identified themselves as paedophiles, because if we didn't, the people who wanted them blocked would be extraordinarily disruptive. As it is, they can just email Arbcom who will investigate and either eject the user as a paedophile, or tell the reporter that they made a mistake.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's a terrible reason to do this. If the policy was not to block peole solely for self-identifying, and somepeople would become extremely disruptive in wanting them blocked anyway, then the disruptive people should be blocked, not the self-declared pedophile. It is not because you believe that some group of people should be blocked, that you get the right to become disruptive, and to use disruption as a threat ("block these users on sight or I will become very disruptive") is showing very poor judgment. You may believe that these users should be blocked, and you may have policy on your side: but if the policy would be otherwise, you would have to live with it as well. Fram (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So again, I feel it would be more helpful for all concerned to emphasize that disruption is one of the core reasons for blocking those who disclose that themselves or another editor is pedofiliac. And place it on or near the first sentence if possible. Anyone else see this as helping clarify why this is the way it currently is? 71.139.2.170 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a pedophile?

Does "pedophile" mean

• Someone who sexually abuses children; or
• Someone who experiences feelings of sexual attraction to children, including those who do not act on those feelings because they appreciate that that would be immoral and criminal and who seek psychological or medical help?

Should the latter be forbidden to edit Wikipedia? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be at a don't ask don't tell phase. I may be missing something but it seems that any disclosure is disruptive and should be done via private email. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But my actual question was my first question. Which of the two is it? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Both, I believe. see Pedophilia. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be all of the above, any self declaration along those lines would require a report to ARBCOM and what they do with it would be up to them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And before you ask, if you (hypothetical) say you are a paedophile and mean the latter, you will still be shown the door. this is not up for negotiation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone is really experiencing unwanted attractions and is seeking psychological help for it, there are better places to share the details than Wikipedia. Even in the best possible interpretation, it falls into the TMI category. --B (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy has tried to avoid becoming drawn into legal and medical debates about the definition of pedophilia, which as the lede of this article explains, has a range of definitions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And thus we would prevent otherwise potentially excellent editors from contributing to cake, Battle of the Somme, German East African rupie, 1913 in science, etc... just because someone found that User:Foobar also posted on a pedophile forum. Block when there's a problem, not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, mainly because of the "email this user" issue raised elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Users can disable that option. —Ost (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporting

I did a search for self-identification and found some users that are pedophiles. Where can I report these users so that they can be promptly blocked?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the policy, "If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, write to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org". --B (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I anticipate that that will take a while, but I will do so. However, how can users that wish for their e-mail to be private, report pedophiles?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's what hotmail is for. You do raise an interesting point though --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this was your search, William. But I also found a number of self-identified pedophiles (and people appearing to accuse others of pedophilia on their user pages) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I used the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia", but I see there are some on that list as well. I did send the e-mail but it seems to have bounced back with a message that a moderator must review the e-mail.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I searched and only found one user self-identifying as a pedophile who is not blocked and he hasn't edited since 2004. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I didn't see any. --B (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With a bit of imagination, I expect we can all find quite a number such as this or those who might be seeking to appeal to them such as this and perhaps this 10-year-old.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a faster and easier way to report pedophiles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like a Venetian Bocca de leone?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just occurred to me that if you run that search with the english spelling, you'll catch me:). I have some drafting for an early version of what eventually turned into this page. Think I'll just go and delete it...(walks away whistling...)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something like AIV or UAA. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That still has the problem of it being in visible space. You'll probably get on faster if you emailed Risker or Sir Fozzie, but I can't see lightning speed is an issue with these old accounts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should users that are self-proclaimed members of, or supporters of NAMBLA, be blocked?--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association NAMBLA is considered to be a pedophile support organization. I would personally report a user if they were openly declaring support on wiki for that organization. It is then a matter for ARBCOM to deal with it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

By typing the acronym in the search, I found five users that are supporting the organization.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel they should be reported then contact ARBCOM. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until they respond to the e-mail I have already sent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Such points are a bit how you feel about the strength of any finds compared to the text in the policy. Looking at two or three of the NABLA search results I didn't find anything active , a couple of inactive accounts. It is likely in such cases a judgement call and if you chose to report then ARBCOM are there to investigate and take action or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alison is currently watching the article (she just revdel'd a nasty piece of vandalism from an IP).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, though. I'm not a member of ArbCom and I'm basically retired these days. I'm still available via email, tho' :) - Alison ^❤ 00:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just mentioned it in case William came up with something current and was tempted to say anything rash.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Inactive" presumably means "inactive w/regard to wiki edits". Not "doesn't use their e-mail other users capability five times a day, and receive incoming emails twice a day". If they are inactive vis-a-vis their wiki edits, query what great harm comes from eliminating their accounts. But having said that, if we are to pay attention to this, there are a number of phrases that one could legitimately review, in addition to the few mentioned here. Also there will always be the "where do we stop" issue. Are self-declared rapists to be treated the same way? Self-declared children who seem to be inviting meetings/etc., such as the above 10-year-old? What about those people ostensibly working on articles about these people in their user space -- should that be tolerated? Or people such as this fellow who admit to spending a decade in jail -- do we have any issues with allowing convicted felons to have accounts? Not saying this isn't an inquiry worth discussing; just looking ahead at issues that attend any implementation.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps for such issues, stagnant accounts and strange things left or abandoned on user pages WP:MFD would be the way to go.Off2riorob (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are long gone users who have something particularly inappropriate, we could just IAR delete them rather than have the drama-creating pedophile MFDs. --B (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Being an unpleasant git :) :) I have MfD'd Epeefleche's example of userpage advertising (not because the chappie spent time in jail - for theft related offences) but because it's the only edit he's ever made, and it advertises his company. I agree, MfDs for the potentially hot pages is a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

alternately: block e-mail for minors

One of the scenarios that seems to have everyone upset is the possibility of "known pedophiles" using Wikipedia to e-mail children on Wikipedia, using the "e-mail this user" function. Since that takes the discussion off Wikipedia, it can no longer be monitored.

An alternative to the toothless "don't say you're a child molester" policy could be to prohibit minors from using Special:EmailUser entirely:

• Add a "birthdate" field to the user profile.
• If the birthdate is left blank, or indicates that the user is less than 18, they cannot send or receive email through Special:EmailUser.

That would not only prevent pedophiles from invisibly contacting minors through Wikipedia, it would block access from drug dealers, credit card thieves, AmWay salesmen and any number of unsavory characters who might have infiltrated Wikipedia.

It is true that any user can lie about their age, and many probably will. But that is equally true of the existing "known pedophile" policy -- no user is required to say whether they are a pedophile. I would expect a voluntary age disclosure policy to be more successful, simply because it's under the control of the users it's designed to protect, and they have less incentive to lie. Moreover, it is more in keeping with the spirit of the "child protection" clause: insofar as Wikipedia has no way to monitor or mediate e-mail between users, it should probably not permit anyone to contact a known minor via e-mail at all.

I don't expect this suggestion to go over well, and if it were brought to WMF I wouldn't expect it to be adopted. But I do think that if we were to adopt it, it would be considerably more effective than our existing policy at protecting children. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be done as well as having the existing policy. Wouldn't that be more effective than either alone? Please do suggest this to the WMF. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Punish the target victims? Nah. I don't think the policy is toothless -- it will not keep all pedophiles from editing Wikipedia, but it will eliminate the disruption occasioned by one who is known to be a pedophile trough his avocacy or self disclosure. Presumably, if a pedophile feels no urge to announce his/her proclivities and otherwise is not advocating for inappropriate adult-child relationships, then they're not here to troll for victims. That would be pretty hard to do without the self disclosure or advocacy. Minor4th • talk 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this would help anything. Rather, someone who is underage and wants to be able to email other users would be forced to give out their email address publicly, which would only make the problem worse. --B (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Without expressing a view on the policy in general, I don't think you want the person's precise birthdate where it is open to public view (not sure if that was what was being suggested). Too many outing and confidentiality issues there.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting that the birthdate be open to public view. Like email address, user ID and other fields, it would only be visible to the account owner. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually a little surprised Wikipedia doesn't already query age for COPPA purposes (though I'm sure if it were a problem Mike Godwin would have addressed it.) I'm not sure how the technical details would work, but extra safeguards preventing young children from being emailed/accidentally posting personal information on Wikipedia wouldn't be at all a bad idea. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Email cannot be disabled for unblocked editors, regardless of their age or sexual proclivities, without a drastic rewrite of the MediaWiki code. Sorry, not an option. Risker (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course: the MediaWiki code can't be modified. That is of course why the much-discussed "pending changes" modification was never implemented, wasn't it? Tim Pierce (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It took the better part of a year and about 4.5 FTE of paid staff to *modify* existing code for pending changes, and that was something specifically requested by the community. "Let's block the email of this contributor in good standing" is pretty poor use of everyone's time, and is insulting to boot. It serves no useful purpose except to create an underclass of users who aren't allowed to communicate the same way that the "adults" can, and is going to be ridiculously arbitratory. Telling people how to not enable email or to disable it if it is already enabled is worthwhile, and could be put on the "advice for young users" page.

If folks were to read up, one would see that I have already posted about how personal information (yes, including email addresses) of minors is routinely suppressed, and is a significant portion of the workload of the Oversight team. Risker (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You may not be viewing the suggestion from the right angle: it's certainly not about creating an underclass or insulting users, it's about protecting those who may not yet have the maturity and wisdom to fully understand the consequences of breaking anonymity on the internet. How careful were you with your email address and other personal information when you were 12? I certainly wasn't at all. Giving away your email address, which very often contains part or all of your real name, to some stranger on the internet who may well be a predator, is a terrible way to learn the importance of privacy. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• @TotientDragooned, COPPA doesn't apply to non-profits. @Risker, email isn't a right just like anything else that you can assign on a per-usergroup basis? I think the proposal is a really bad idea, but that seems like an awful limitation for customization of MediaWiki. There are plenty of potential implementations (not Wikipedia) where you might want to only allow admins to send email or some such thing. --B (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a non-starter for a range of reasons. Once someone said "I am a pedophile/committed pedophile offences in the past but am now cured", a block on the use of on-site email would be desirable. When someone is a recovering alcoholic, you do not give them a bottle of whisky.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Self-identifying" as a pedophile

enlarged discussion regarding policy brought from Jimbo Wales talkpage.

We are going round in circles again at Wikipedia talk:Child protection. Some users argue that self-identifying as a pedophile is not in itself disruptive and a cause for a block. If someone says on a user page or a talk page "I am a pedophile", should this automatically lead to a block, or should additional criteria be applied?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only and not for Jimbo or the Committee (although I rather suspect they agree), yes, this should automatically lead to a block (at the VERY least, emailing the committee). I can understand that in some rare cases that this is meant as a joke, or as a breaching experiment, but in the vast majority of THOSE cases, they should be blocked for horrible judgement. SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My view on this is also a clear "yes", but not everyone is convinced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should say that it depends on the situation. There might be people that have this illness (it is an illness), don't try to hide it, but are able to control themselves, to not doing something stupid. The proclamation to be an pedophile isn't that bad at all, but as i said, it depends much on the situation and how this words are used. An general outing shouldn't lead to an block, but any attempt to blandish it, should. --Niabot (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Eschewing for the moment your claim that it is merely an illness, someone self-identifying as a pedophile, for whatever reason, is so intrinsically disruptive as to demand that they be blocked. If you were a parent and your son was editing Wikipedia, do you really want him editing right alongside a self-described pedophile? This is one of those things where a command decision needs to be made that we're going to shoot first and ask questions later. --B (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I get that our standards are orders of magnitude lower than any other volunteer organization I've ever heard of, but really - is there any respectable volunteer organization that accepts self-professed pedophiles? MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! The fact that it takes weeks of arguing and that this issue has been festering for at least four years says that there are some fundamental problems somewhere along the line. --B (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are stupid enough to claim to be a communist during a Red Scare; then you are not smart enough to help write an encyclopedia. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which brings up the very interesting question of why we're fueling a Red Scare. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the key issues here is access to the "email this user" facility. It would be unacceptably risky to allow a person to use this after self-identifying as a pedophile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that simply stating on your user page "I am a pedophile" isn't very productive and may lead to a block, the problem is where this ends. If, in an imaginary discussion on an article talk page, we have: Editor A: "This article is much too soft. All pedophiles are brutal child molesters without a grain of human dignity and this article should reflect this!" and Editor B: "Please, show some restraint. I am a pedophile, but I'm not a child molester. While I believe that 8 years old are physically more attractive than grown-ups, I know that they are mentally not suited for a relationship with an adult, and so I don't act on my impulses, my hormones, my sickness if you like. We are not all child molesters, just like not all "normal" heterosexuals are rapists". Would Wikipedias reaction be an immediate and indefinite ban for editor B? What purpose would that serve? Fram (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we do not have to formulate precise laws that cater for all conceivable situations (it's fortunate because it saves us a lot of trouble, and because real life proves that it is impossible). It does not matter if pedophilia is an involuntary human condition, a disease or mental disorder, or just plain orneriness: whatever the cause, someone who reveals that they are a pedophile of a pedophilia advocate demonstrates that they lack crucial judgment concerning behavior that is appropriate for a public website dedicated to building an encyclopedia. The same applies to anyone proclaiming such an outlook as a joke or for trolling. It's just not helpful here, and the editor needs to find another outlet for their skills. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's one policy I won't enact is such cases. This has gone far beyond protecting the children and moved way into political correctness and bowing for public opinion (as far as that is represented by Fox News). Blocking for advocacy and trolling, fair enough, but blocking for honesty in a relevant discussion (without any advocacy or without defending any illegal actions) is a far cry from what I hoped this collaborative environment stood for. If we want a fair, balanced, complete, NPOV encyclopedia, we need to collaborate with those whose ideas or impulses we find repulsive as well as with those we agree with. Fram (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For NPOV, we of course rely on reliable sources, and absolutely do not want to use the personal experiences of pedophiles (or non-pedophiles) as the basis to improve relevant articles. Suppose a pedophile noticed that a topic (say hoop rolling) did not have an article, or needed improvement to include a missing, sourced POV. All they have to do is click "edit" – that's fine. What we do not want is someone who cannot understand that declaring support for pedophilia is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Any editor is free to say that source X makes claim Y. By "declaring", I include off-wiki activity: it is also not helpful to the encyclopedia for a username to be clearly connected with off-wiki pedophilia advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. If someone has written a book/been interviewed by a serious journal about their experiences as a paedophile (whether as a child abuser or as an avoider of offences), then one can use the source. We wouldn't incorporate first person testimony into articles on anything else ('as a mother myself...' etc).Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Both answers are completely irrelevant. I am not discussing whether said comments from editors A or B should be used in an article (obviously not), but whether an editor making, in a discussion, a statement similar to what editor B did above, should be blocked. I did give as a reason that to have a NPOV etc. collaborative encyclopedia, you need editors of all kinds of POV, background, ... It is harder to detect a bias in an article that agrees with your POV. It is much easier to detect bias in an article that disagrees with you. If an article related to pedophilia would contain text slanted towards "they are all child molesters", and editor B would state on the talk page that that is contrary to his personal experience as a non-practicing pedophile, and would go on to provide reliable sources for his opinion that such pedophiles exist, would you still block him? And if so, why (and please no "because it's policy", I want to know why it is policy)? Fram (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(just noted that User B is in this discussion as well. My Editors A and B have nothing whatsoever to do with usernames A or B, evidently). Fram (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See my post below. To me, you would have to block him because it would become very disruptive at that point. There is no way a fight would not break out. See [1], and in this instance the other editor was only arguing from a philosophical principal, and has not actual connection to paedophilia. Whether the WMF might consider giving your self-disclosing editor a fresh account and telling him to avoid giving out such personal information in the future is a debate yet to be had.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to the same point you made in an above discussion. You are suggesting that we should block someone because other editors would become very disruptive. This is obviously a very poor reason. If an editor does something that is allowed by policy but that causes another editor for philosophical/moral reasons to become disruptive, then you warn and if necessary block the disruptive editor, not the other one. You don't make a policy or block users because otherwise other editors may become disruptive. When quite a few editors became disruptive because we included Mohammed pictures, we didn't ban the pictures, we told the editors that we wouldn't remove these pictures, and that further disruption would get them blocked. Fram (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The argument that "self-identifying as a pedophile is inherently disruptive because once someone identifies as a pedophile I will start trying to block you" would be funny if it were not so deadly earnest. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs on the Wikipedia talk:Child protection as it has become a discussion about the policy in general and deviated from a specific question for Jimbo. Off2riorob (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone said it earlier, why would you say you are a Communist during a Red scare (or a Catholic at the time of the Gunpowder Plot)? People did, and they seem to have done it for a variety of reasons based somewhere along a line between "my view is the only right view" and "never mind who is right, we must stand up to state oppression". Given that the current zeitgeist views paedophiles as one step down from slime mould, and this is an encyclopaedia where information is presented based on WP:RS, why would someone out themselves on our pages as a non-abusing paedophile, risking rejection, ejection and determined investigation by the paedophile alert groups resulting in outing? Indeed, one could look at the advice not to declare one's self a paedophile in this project to be in the best interests of such an editor, because they would put themselves at considerable risk of attracting investigation and outing. And they would disrupt the project (however unintentionally), because others would keep demanding that they be removed, keep arguing with them - probably in most unparliamentary language, and so forth. Above on this page, IP 75.139 made the point several times that it is because of the disruption it would cause that self-identification should always be blockable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The technical limitations of MediaWiki software mean that once a user self-identified as a pedophile, it would be almost impossible to guarantee no misuse of the "email this user" facility or of the talk page. For this reason alone, a block should follow, and it would be up to ArbCom to decide what to do next.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that a circular argument as well? i.e. that self identification should be banable because the subject in question would be stupid to not realize it's banable. _→AzaToth 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This whole debate has become circular. I cannot see any problem with a block for self-identifying, if the policy has been clearly explained. As another user said, it is simply TMI to permit self-identification.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"if the policy has been clearly explained" That's the problem. People get immediate and indef blocks for legal threats (which I agree with), and get immediate unblock when they retract their threat (usually with people who were unaware of that policy). However, you can not simply retract a self-identification, so that anyone who unknowingly and without malicious intentions would violate the policy, would be blocked without a chance of an unblock. Fram (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think as with all users that are blocked or banned they have the ability to make a case to ARBCOM for unblocking. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is little doubt that an account would be permanently compromised if the user admitted to being a pedophile, well-intentioned or not. There is also an issue of user trust, and it is unlikely that many admins would be happy to give the free run of the site to someone who admitted to this. So a block should always follow self-identification (the length is not the key issue here) and ArbCom should be the next stop for any discussions/appeals.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering how rare the cases probably will be of a self-identifying but not advocating or otherwise disruptive pedophile on Wikipedia, I'll let this discussion go on without me, but I don't believe that it is a good situation when people are blocked for what they are, think or believe, and not for what they actually do here. It sets a very bad precedent. Fram (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We all have different position on this but if I was to ask you, what is the biggest danger to children on the web, I and many others would answer pedophiles, and this is about dealing with that, actually it is just what has been the policy de facto for a long time. All sites are have been dealing with this issue and facebook and so on. IMO child safety is paramount to wikipedia and to all responsible websites. As an aspiring educational tool and with many many young editors and school contributors I believe your well meaning position that pedophiles should be allowed to self declare that they are pedophiles on wikipedia and be allowed to edit wikipedia as long as they edit within policy is unrealistic and untenable in an environment of increased awareness as regards these issues. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"I and many others would answer pedophiles" and that answer might be wrong. Online bullying might actually be a far more damaging activity. As stated in this video (Protecting children on the Internet), online predators, although dangerous, broadly published and investigated, are actually rather rare, whereas bullying is very common and causing a lot of psychological damage (causing many suicides for instance). It is an interesting video btw, and clearly shows some of the major US/EU disjunct that exists when it comes to human rights. Even though it's 2,5 years old, I advice all to view it.

To reiterate my position about this, I think we have a tendency to overprotect children as a society, but i'm all for blocking advocacy of pedophilia. I'm just not really sure if I want to extend "advocacy" to selfindentification. It kinda goes against what I believe in, but in the case of on online community it might be unavoidable. I'm just scared that we are opening a door here towards blocking other people for no reason whatsoever, other then what say they are. What if scientology becomes very annoying. Are we gonna start blocking people who self identify as scientologists ? Personally I find religious nuts quite dangerous and care that my children not be brought into direct contact with them, but blocking them from Wikipedia would a whole different ballgame. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is being a scientologist illegal? What "level" of being a pedophile is illegal? Are having pedophilic thoughs illegal and does that make one a pedophile or do you have to have done something illegal? I would support "action" against an editor who identifies as being a criminal, or endorse doing criminal behavior, except for smoking pot of course :) --Tom (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone convicted of certain types of crime will receive a permanent ban on working with children.[2] This includes child porn and sex offences. After someone self-identified as a pedophile on Wikipedia, it would be almost impossible to guarantee that they did not come into contact with minors. Self-identification would make a block an acceptable course of action, as long as it is stated clearly along lines similar to WP:NLT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Those people are convicted. That is totally different. I have no moral problems with that. My problem is exactly that we are potentially blocking people who might not even have done anything worth a conviction in the real world. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As the saying goes, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Unless a person made a decision to say "I am a pedophile" (convicted or not), none of this would ever happen. However, it is still within the range of policy to say that anyone who self-identifies as a pedophile will be blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, if it makes people happier, think of it as blocking persons who self identify on the wiki as paedophiles just because they broke the rule. Not because of who they are, what they think, or what kind of mental health problem they might have. Just because they broke an arbitrary and very strict, but clearly stated, easy to find rule that everyone should be aware of. You could put a little link to the child protection policy somewhere on the mainpage if you like - this would have the two added benefits of making it clear that this is separate from the many rules about creating and editing articles, and Fox's nose could be rubbed in it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what Jimbo had to say about the issue on his talk page:--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, why is anyone arguing so stridently for pedophiles to be able to self-identify on Wikipedia? How does that serve the encyclopedia? This is a collaborative project, and it is a private enterprise, not a functionary of the government. Individuals do not have "rights" here. The presence of self declared pedophiles has been found by consensus to be detrimental to this collaborative project for a variety of reasons -- child protection, PR, general and popular disgust, reputability of the encyclopedia, it's the right thing to do, it's the popular thing to do, etc. Those are all good reasons supporting the policy. I have not seen a single argument that asserts that the encyclopedia is enhanced if pedophiles are permitted to self identify -- the arguments instead focus on individual rights and freedoms, as if Wikipedia must afford each individual with personal liberties even to the detriment of the collective project. That is a ridiculous notion. We have username conventions that could similarly be viewed as restrictions on individual freedom of expression or individual "rights" of self promotion. We have restrictions on "hate speech" -- some offensive utterances will lead to immediate blocks, even though the expression is not illegal and even though the editor feels strongly that he has a "right" to express his views. So what is the policy rationale behind these arguments that pedophiles should be permitted to self identify? It's either argument for the sake of argument or a lack of understanding and respect for the collaborative project or it's the kind of advocacy that is prohibited by the policy. For those arguing that position, please indicate which of these categories is driving your continued commentary in opposition to community supported policy. Minor4th • talk 16:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm not especially concerned about any civil rights issues here. The chief things that bother me are:

1. I think the policy as stated will be ineffectual at best and counterproductive at worst.
2. Pedophilia hysteria has reached such a fever pitch that it is almost impossible to have even a sensible conversation on the matter.

Tim Pierce (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but how would a Wikipedia article ever be improved by allowing a person to say "I am a pedophile" or "I had great sex with my wife last night"?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am completely perplexed by your question. Is it also grounds for immediate blocking to write on Wikipedia "I had great sex with my wife last night"? Are you now at risk of being indefinitely blocked for having written that? Tim Pierce (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first point is a valid concern, and the WMF should monitor the situation. The policy has been running for a number of years, but has not previously been well publicised, and the number of complaints of inappropriate activity that actually involves children should be monitored. Your second point is a valid observation, but I'm not sure where it gets us.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying "I had great sex with my wife last night" would have issues with WP:TPO and WP:NOTAFORUM. Similar concerns have been expressed about self-identification as a pedophile. Since self-identification would not be a reliable source anyway, it would have little scope for article improvement. Hope that this clarifies the previous comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just very weary about creating new rules. This wasn't a written (or even a widely known for that matter) policy before, but if we are writing it down as a 'law', then I think we should be sensible about it and discuss it properly. Excluding people from Wikipedia should always be a very serious thing. This sets precedents and we need to make sure that such will be a good precedent in as many ways as possible. Just arbitrarily setting new standards is a bad thing because each time you hand in a bit of your online freedom. Reversing guidelines/policies afterwards is always much harder, so we should make it as good as it can get the first time. Usually that is why policies go trough multiple rounds of discussions, rephrasing and voting. Here we are ignoring that well established method of creating policy and I think that is a mistake. Even though I believe that we would end up with something almost exactly the same and probably with the "self identified" part int the policy regardless. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Child protection has met with approval, apart from the wording about "self-identifying", which seems to be a sticking point for some users. There are also WP:CONEXCEPT issues here, but let's not rehash them. Rule creep is a bad thing, but allowing a Wikipedia user account to be linked to a person saying "I am a pedophile" is wrong, and a few short paragraphs explaining this could save a lot of trouble in the long run.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So the argument is not really that anyone thinks Wikipedia will be improved by allowing pedophiles to self-identify? Sounds like the slippery slope argument, which is essentially arguing for the sake of arguing. @ TheDJ: it's already policy and what you're thinking of is reversing what is and has been policy for a long time. Read the Wiki page on creating policy --- more often than not, written policy is merely a memorialization of the community's adaptation and prior implementation of a particular procedure that has found to be working and improves the encyclopedia. By the way, the policy page makes it clear that it is acceptable to edit the policy page, and it also makes it clear that proposing brand new policy from scratch and holding drawn out community discussions is not the way it is normally done. If you have a particular policy that you think deserves community wide attention and discussion, perhaps make that proposal officially at the village pump or whatever noticeboard you see fit..with the understanding of course, that this particular policy is in place and is somewhat of an edict from above (after long standing community practice and consensus) and taking a vote is not going to change the policy. I think discussion is valuable, but the policy is not going to change according to a vote. Minor4th • talk 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well not really, clearly others have stated concerns as well. My point is that we usually discuss things like this. Pedophilia as a topic works rather stifling in that it is hard to be against something that might potentially hurt children. That doesn't by definition however mean that these concerns are not without merit. I partly share these concerns, but mostly I advocate that we explore those concerns, since most of our editor community has not yet had a chance until now to really participate in discussing this policy. Apparently a lot of people think it is unnecessary that these editors get to participate. I think that will alienate members of our community from the decision making process. Of course if I'm a lone person in the desert, then this advocacy is not going anywhere. But at least I have not been silent about it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good to give people an opportunity to say what they think about it. Everybody wants to be heard, and I agree that if that opportunity is denied it will alienate and disenfranchise people who are interested in having a voice. So, why don't you raise the discussion in a more prominent locale for discussion? I think the discussion is important for the reasons that we agree on, but I also think it's important for people to realize that it's really not up for a vote, so expectations should be adjusted accordingly. Minor4th • talk 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If Oscar Wilde were alive today, and he wanted to edit Wikipedia, would you block him? 91.110.249.158 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And what if Roman Polanski started editing film-related articles? Clear-cut block, right? TotientDragooned (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. No question about it. Minor4th • talk 03:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Random Break

Well, how is a person going to self-identify as a pedophile? Not directly in an article. He can do it in only two ways: 1) on his user page, or 2) in another non-article space, presumably a talk page or edit summary. (In addition, he may make a pattern of editing that tags him as likely pedophile, but this is not self-identification.

Obviously, if someone self-identifies on his user page as a pedophile, that's not going to be allowed. Right? If nothing else, if this was allowed, half the trolls on the internet would make Wikipedia user pages tomorrow. Right? Can we all agree on this, I hope?

That leaves (basically) talk pages and edit summaries. Based on my experiences in this area, this is what I would find most suitable:

1) That the policy stays as it is -- self-identification is prohibited. 2) BUT... if people want to exercise a little common-sense leeway in this, I wouldn't object. If an otherwise good editor lets slip a comment such as "As a pedophile myself, I know that such-and-such is incorrect...", could the first editor who sees this perhaps drop a little note to the editor pointing to this policy? Maybe delete the edit himself? I don't think the universe would fall. Of course, its partly a matter of luck. If the Hammer Of The Gods (no names, but you know who you are, and God bless you) sees it first, the editor is gone.

Which might not be entirely fair, but I policy like law is a blunt instrument, and I think we need the policy basically as stated in order to avoid excessive drama and be able to act quickly and, yes, ruthlessly to protect the Wikipedia when necessary. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am more than a little puzzled how anyone could "let slip", in writing, no less, something as generally incriminating (in the sense of socially unacceptable) as "as a pedophile myself". If you are writing it, then you are obviously involved in some article or discussion about the topic; isn't this the very place where a known pedophile is specifically not wanted? And the comment would be WP:OR anyway. Is your tongue firmly in cheek, Herostratus? Bielle (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I too am wondering if you aren't pulling our collective leg a bit here, Herostratus. Self-identified paedophiles remain an unacceptable risk, whether the self-identification comes in the form of a userpage announcement, a talk page announcement or an edit summary. All of these have chilling effects. Common sense says that granting access to a known paedophile on a website that is heavily populated with underage editors, giving them the opportunity to establish private communication with those underage editors through the website's interface, is a really bad idea.

I remain concerned that we haven't done a good job of addressing the sometimes subtle but perhaps more problematic issue of advocacy editing. Risker (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that attempts to legitimize pedophilia in any way at any venue, should be blocked on sight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy needs common sense interpretation, since a few words cannot cover everything that might possibly happen. Subtle advocacy can be harder to spot than a direct statement , but once a user said "I am a pedophile" (or words to that effect) a block would be inevitable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well...granted that this is a little academic, let's take an extreme case. An editor writes 200 Good Articles on say German Motorsports or whatever, someone comes on a talk page and says for some reason, "pedophiles should be killed", and the editor says "I'm a pedophile, I've never broken the law, and I resent that" -- you would throw away that editors career? I would not block that person. I would delete the edit and have a word with him. You may block if you wish and as I said I would not restrict your right to do so.

I'm very aware of the political dangers involved and I've been waving my arms about this for five years. I do not consider the above case a political danger, provided the edit is deleted.

I do not consider the above case to represent a danger to any of our editors. The idea the child molesters are going to use the Wikipedia to gain access to children is, in my view, way way overblown. Surely there are many other sites, chat rooms if they still have those, and whatever that are much more dangerous for that. We don't want to succumb to hysteria here. We have existed for (how many?) years and don't have one real case of this happening.

Our main issue with pedophiles is: we do not want pedophiles editing articles relating to sex and children and so forth, because they tend to be pro-sex-with-children-normalization editors. That is the heart of the issue, from my perspective, which may be limited because that's the area I work in, or used to.

And Risker -- We haven't? Well, jump on in! here's some articles to take a look at for starters. I've get plenty more info if you want. Looking forward to your assistance! Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say, this is a little academic. If an editor did say "As a pedophile..." at Talk:Schnitzer Motorsport, they would be blocked under the policy pending further investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How should we deal with IP advocates? I suggest semi-protection of all Pedophile related articles and their talk pages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There would be a need to be a look at how widespread the problem was. There is little point in blocking sensible IPs for the sake of a few troublemakers. Semi-protection or pending changes could be applied where needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying" as a pedophile - revisited

more extended discussion brought from Jimbo's talkpage.

Jimbo, please could you comment here. Note to other users: please do not discuss the issue here, only on the relevant talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I think that removing the considered statements of nine editors from this talk page is something that Jimbo should do (instead of this deletion). Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not ideal, but it was wandering off topic a bit from the original question.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with moving this off my talk page. Since I'm now at Wikimania, I expect to be mostly very very busy the next few days with that, and not really available for theoretical questions. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand you're busy and can accept that, but with due respect, this is hardly a theoretical question. On the contrary, it's very much a practical question, a question of what you and the ArbCom mean by the word "pedophilia", which, I'm sure you'll agree, can have a number of different meanings. A policy handed down by fiat, one that is not left to consensus to implement, must be well defined if we are to trust its narrow application. Powers ^T 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was developed... implemented through community consensus" citations please? TotientDragooned (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you been anywhere near these issues in recent years? If not, you probably have no idea what has been going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please, educate me by linking to one or two of these alleged community discussions. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Jimbo, I think that that is exactly what some people are kinda objecting to. This is the fallout of having an unwritten policy enforced in the dark. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need to have common sense set in stone? If some vermin steps up and declares himself an advocate of pedophilia, then he will be banned. We really don't need some colorful wiki-acronym to point to to justify that. Tarc (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is a nice idea, but doesn't exist in practicality. Fox News proves it all day long. That's why this discussion exists in the first place. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, this is not about the banning of people who are advocating pedophilia. This is about those people who are selfidentifying as pedophiles but don't advocate it. It is not "common sense" that people are blocked for their personality, their opinion, their belief, their sexuality, or a disease they have, as long as they are not committing any offences or as long as they are not promoting such activities. No one should get blocked for what they are, only for what they do. Advocating pedophilia is doing something, being a pedophile not. Fram (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying is doing something. That's why the policy is the way it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That has to be the weakest excuse I have heard in a long time. Fram (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be insulting. It isn't an excuse. I'm just explaining how it evolved and why. If someone is a pedophile and doesn't do anything, no one knows about it and nothing happens. If someone self-identifies, that's disruptive. You may not agree, but that's how the policy evolved, and to pretend that it is otherwise is to misstate the facts and mislead people about the purpose and effects of the policy. Don't do that, please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, saying somethins is a weak excuse is "misleading people about the purpose and effects of the policy"? You have to be kidding me. I don't agree with the policy (in this respect, no problem with blocks of advocates of pedophilia), and I believe that self-identifying as a pedophile (e.g. in a talk page discussion as a response against simplified pedophile-bashing comments, as I described on the policy talk page) doesn't have to be disruptive (not more disruptive than people declaring their nationality, religion, sexual preferences, or affiliation with the military may be to other people), and that all editors should be able to coopêrate with othere editors, no matter how criminal, despicable, or loathsome you find their ideas and background. If you have a discussion where X states "all racists want to kill jews", and Y states "I'm a racist, but I don'twant to kill anyone, I just don't want them in my country", then we wouldn't be blocking him. If Y would plaster his user page with a big "I'm a racist and proud of it! Whites are the best!" note, then he probably (hopefully) would be blocked. I have not seen any convincing arguments to treat pedophiles on WIkipedia different. But that doesn't mean that I have mislead people about the purpose and effects of the policy", and I would ask you to not make such over the top accusations. Fram (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fram, there is no comparison to the disruptiveness that would be created between self declaration as a Pedophile and self declaration as a racist. We have a lot of nationalist editors here and they can be disruptive and we have many ways to deal with them, one revert and increasing blocks etc. Your comparison of racism and pedophilia amazes me, we have a duty of care to protect our young editors from contact and exposure to people that would self declare as pedophiles. As for your position that we should allow people who self declare as pedophiles to edit the wikipedia, that is against long term practice and never going to happen in the real world or the wikipedia world. Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to expose young editors to racists either. In my view, the people who are taking the pitchforks and start screaming "pedophile! pedophile! Let's burn him" are causing the disruption. The devious and rather circular reasoning is "if you state that you are a pedophile, then we will have a fit and cause disruption, so you should be blocked". It's current practice, and it may not change since Jimbo and apparently the WMF support it, but it is a very poor excuse for the blocking. We are an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except pedophiles (and whoever will be next). Never mind that the actual danger for children will in all probablility not come from anyone declaring themselevs to be a pedophile, but from the undeclared ones. Fram (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I think people making racist remarks or self-identifying as racists should be instantly banned as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been a single instance of anyone screaming "pedophile! pedophile! Let's burn him." If Fram took a close look around, he'd see that in fact many self-identified pedophiles have been blocked very quietly and without fanfare or disruption, and not a single pitchfork in the mix. Gross hyperbole does not enhance your position, Fram. Minor4th • talk 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gross hyperbole? "And that's another good reason to block people who have identified themselves as paedophiles, because if we didn't, the people who wanted them blocked would be extraordinarily disruptive." This comes from Wikipedia talk:Child protection, from one of the more active defenders of the policy wrt self identification. If people supporting the policy are stating that without the policy, they would be "extraordinaly disruptive", then I don't think I have used gross hyperbole at all, just a comparison between witch hunts and the way some people are behaving here. Blocking people because otherwise other people would be disruptive is bass-ackwards. Fram (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So Fram, you support allowing self identified pedophiles to edit the wikipedia and you support blocking anyone that doesn't like it, incredulous. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for totally misrepresenting my position. I have presented scenarii where someone would self identify as a pedophile in a non-obtrusive, non-advocating way, in the course of a relevant discussion. I don't believe that that should be cause for blocking. I support the blocking of anyone advocating pedophilia, anyone actively showing pedophile behaviour (and please report those to the police or something similar as well), and all similar trollish or criminal editors. I do not support the blocking of anyone who (in a seemingly genuine, non trollish way) mentions that he or she is a pedophile (E.g. someone stating in a discussion on a pedophilia related article: "As someone who is in therapy for his pedophilia, I can assure you that not all pedophiles are happy with their situation at all").

As to the second point of your bizarre summary of my position: I support the blocking of everyone who disrupts Wikipedia. I don't support blocking anyone that doesn't like something or someone, and have never stated anything even resembling this. I don't see where you could have possibly gotten this idea. Fram (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your comment from last night, self-identifying amounts to essentially the same thing, IMO. We do not need editors who wave their hands and yell "hi, I like to have sex with children!" Such people should be shown the door. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But there is a lot more that "self-identifying as a pedophile" could include than just "Hi, I like to have sex with children!". Powers ^T 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, such people should be shown the door. OF course, those were also not the kind of editors I was discussing. Fram (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap already. Unless you're a pedophile, you don't have anything to worry about. And even then, all you have to do is stay quite about it and you'll be fine. On Wikipedia, we are focused on creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, not a social networking profile. If racists, pedophiles, murderers, thieves or prostitutes find the need to announce themselves as such, then they are at the wrong place. Stop looking at the policy as "Block on sight" and instead look at it as "Don't disclose controversial information about yourself or otherwise you'll be blocked." I think that if you look at it that way, it sounds perfectly fair. Its fair because this is an encyclopedia and there is no need to disclose that kind of information anywhere. Feedback ^☎ 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Being blocked for disclosing "controversial information" about myself is "fair"?? And what is "controversial information"? Today is pedophiles (and maybe racists, if Jimbo comment above holds): tomorrow who will be? (hi Godwin!). On my userpage I declare I am an atheist. It is a controversial information for sure. Should I be banned because I disclose that? If we are focused on creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, we should be aware of others' editors cultural and psychological biases. Hiding such things under the sand and pretending they don't exist will not help at all (quite the opposite), and creates a chilling atmosphere which is for sure not helpful for editing.

Also: we should block/ban the editor, not the man. What counts are the edits. I don't care if in real life an editor is Mother Teresa or Jeffrey Dahmer: if the first is disruptive on site and the second is a good editor on site, I would support blocking the first and keeping the second. --Cyclopia^talk 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean for this to become a rehashing of the arguments over the policy. But even if we accept that the policy exists and won't be changed, there's still the little problem of defining what the hell the policy means. Like it or not, sometimes when writing an encyclopedia, personal thoughts, opinions, and experiences sometimes enter into the discussion. The question is, is someone going to be silently and irreversibly blocked for letting slip that he might have some idea what ephebophiles are feeling, or that he could understand how a 12-year-old might be attractive to some people, or that he's had some experience with the legal aspects of child-protection rules? Powers ^T 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The policy doesn't block people "if they might be a pedophile", it blocks people who say they are pedophiles. Now, if I were a pedophile, I'd refrain from comments like the ones above because eventually the question "Are you a pedophile?" might arise and the only answer policy allows is "No." Feedback ^☎ 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only good answer to that or any similar question is "that is none of your business". We shouldn't be asking people any personal questions, not their gender, age, religion, sexual preferences, medical history, criminal records, ... Fram (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the policy is clear, if someone was opining such detail then the way to progress would be a simple email to ARBCOM with links to the comments and allow them to deal with it or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But the question is, what would ArbCom do? Do they consider such statements actionable? We don't know. And that's a dangerous place to be. Powers ^T 18:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is up to ARBCOM, that is what they are there for, to take the big decisions on behalf of and in the best interests of the foundation as and when required. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So? Does that mean they can't tell us what standards they use? Can they just use any interpretation of the word "pedophile" they want and we have no recourse but to sit back and hope they don't catch us in the net? Powers ^T 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe in blocking for pro-pedophelia advocacy. But I also agree that a person can be sick and take steps to be safe within their selves. It is a slippery slope to ban them just for being sick. Ban them from content invovling children and limit their contact. It's a encyclopedia, Disable email access and assign a mentor willing to help monitor them. Don't shoo away contributors if they aren ot being problematic in that area. Let them edit where they don't have issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ec - Well if someone is caught in the net, as you say, they will have the usual ability to discuss and present a case for unblocking to them, they are as I have found very fair and considered. IMO as I have seen previous usage, this will be a rare situation and only related to clear cut cases. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But how would you know, since such operations are done in secret? And how would the community know in the future? With other ArbCom actions, unfairness can be rectified by observing the operation of cases and electing preferable candidates. But the privacy problems inherent to pedophilia accusations require that observation be impossible, so we need to know what parameters the ArbCom uses in these cases. Powers ^T 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• This has again moved to a policy discussion and to host it on Jimbo's talkpahge is unfair. Discussion requires moving to the correct location the policy talkpage. Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The original intent was to ask Jimbo for clarification of the policy. That's hardly unfair. Powers ^T 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

past, or only present

Does/Should the policy include people who has been pedophiles, but isn't any more? _→AzaToth 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the argument of a person saying "I committed pedophile offences in the past, but have not done so for x years". Should this person be blocked? This is a tough call, and for a range of practical reasons a person would be discouraged from making an admission of this kind in Wikipedia project space. Because of the difficulty of regulating the "email this user" feature, anyone who admitted to having been convicted of a pedophile offence in the past would probably have to be blocked. There is an element of "don't ask, don't tell" here, but self-identifying is rarely going to be a good idea.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

MySpace and other social sites routinely compare lists of registered sex offenders against their membership, to prevent people who have been convicted of sex crimes from gaining an account. It's more difficult in AzaToth's example if the person is saying 'I used to get those urges, but don't do so any longer'. If paedophilia is a condition of the same type as anorexia (say) it would at least theoretically be possible to be cured (I've never actually met a 'recovered' anorexic who wasn't stick thin and obsessive about what they ate, but that's purely anecdotal), and thus no longer be a paedophile. Telling people to keep quiet about such things is probably not particularly enlightened, but it is the safer course for the individual in today's climate, I would have thought. In any case, as the policy is 'block and pass to Arbcom', Arbcom could presumably have a conversation with the Foundation as to what they should do in such case, should it arise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some matters about which taking Internet personas at their word (WP:AGF) is not sensible. Even if every word of that hypothetical scenario were true, it speaks only to this very minute. The potential has been actual and could be again. Indeed, block and pass to ARRBCOM, but I doubt very much that block would ever be lifted. Bielle (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And as pointed out previously, a person saying "I am/am not a pedophile" in project space is original research anyway. Wikipedia is not a law enforcement agency, but can block users for violations of policy. Saying on Wikipedia "I am a pedophile" is a bit like going to the airport and saying "I've got a bomb". Regardless of whether this turns out to be true, you are likely to be banned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The airport bomb analogy is a good one, and it can apply also to those who point at others and say "they have a bomb!". Both actions cause disruption. Some public discussion on how this sort of thing is handled is needed (of course), but it should be general and great pains taken to avoid the two extremes of abtruse philosophising and moral panic. It should be a practical policy designed to deal with this sort of thing pragmatically, while recognising that it doesn't deal entirely with the problem and caution is always needed. In particular, the editorial community still need to periodically review the articles in question and be alert for this sort of editing (if the editorial community ignores the articles or editors of these articles, this policy won't work). Specific concerns about individual editors or groups of editors should be handled as described in the policy. I'm not entirely comfortable with ArbCom being the body that handles this sort of thing (mainly because the composition and responsiveness of ArbCom varies over time, and because we are volunteers like everyone else), but in the absence of another group to deal with this, it is better than public debates about individual editors. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about meta and commons

Please do not restore the section that I just blanked (and will look to be oversighting shortly). I would like to invite those of you concerned about meta and commons's discussions and policies to make your concerns known directly to the administrators on meta and commons respectively to change their policies. This came a little too close to the line for several people's tastes. Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, we were assured that this was WMF policy. The discussions on meta and commons (can I repost the links to them please) show that this manifestly is not the case, as does the request above for us mere editors to take it up with them. This is also a cracking example of the Wikipedia policy failing to work - you are oversighting evidence RATHER THAN have it dealt with, instead of AS A PRELUDE TO having it dealt with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This [3] is the discussion on meta This [4] is the discussion on commons This [5] is a post on my commons userpage --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what line SirFozzie is referring to, but I know that Commons crossed the line of child endangerment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. If there's something wrong with Commons, take it up to them, or the WMF, or Jimbo. But complaining here won't help anyone. --Conti|✉ 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaining here will hopefully raise awareness of the issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the line, obviously, but.. I agree with you guys that Meta and Commons are handling this badly. Just some of the lines in this conversation struck multiple people I talked to this as being over the line. The user in question is banned from En.Wp. We (the Committee) have no control over what other WMF projects do or do not do. I do hope they realize the situation, and move forward in a productive manner, considering Jimbo's words. Just commenting HERE doesn't really do anything to change what happens THERE. If people who normally edit here want to comment there on the policy and urge them to change it, that's great. Go to it with a vengeance I say. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have neither the energy nor the heart. From the look of how things are going over there, I'd probably be blocked for even suggesting it - no-one who is not from en:wp is supportive of the idea of blocking paedophiles for anything on Commons. They took no notice of Sue Gardner, and they are content with seeing a known paedophile take part in the discussion. This is not "handling it badly", this is "out of control". I can't bear to wait until one of the news agencies picks it up. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I second that. This has gone too far and I hope Jimbo gets involved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's actually got any clout with any of the other wikis. The foundation has some, because it's their servers, so they could institute a policy as they did with the copyvio policy. But it doesn't look as if they are going to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that Jimbo is a sysop on Commons since he deleted all those obscene photos a few months ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[6] (sorry, it's Fox News again). Note the comments about hitting Wikimedia in the wallet, targeting donors over that event. You don't need too many of them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article. This [7] is the right one - and again, apologies that its Fox News.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Was a sysop on Commons. After he botched the removal of pictures he deemed "obscene", his permissions were removed. --Carnildo (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Meta and Commons is a joke right now. The WMF's supreme act of sitting on their hands and looking away is farcical and embarrassing to the project, as it's clear they care more about Section 230 than anything else. I also felt that Sue Gardner's recent statements on the matter were weasely in the extreme. But ... having reviewed those edits, I've felt the need to suppress them as, in my opinion, they may have crossed a legal line. I welcome any other oversighters or ArbCommies to check them over and decide accordingly - Alison ^❤ 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I'd been very careful to use only material that is already in Wikipedia's visible history - the user's block log - and a link to some of the offsite evidence used in the original case. I had no intention of causing trouble. Incidentally, did you know that the user had asked you to get him unblocked on en:wiki (either on your Meta or Simple accounts, can't recall which)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Prolly on Simple, but I'm rarely if ever over there. He's wasting his time ... - Alison ^❤ 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I applaud their and her wisdom, tact, and clear-headed ability to separate true problems from moral panic. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To me the Commons discussion has seemed like a straightforward though perhaps not inspired job of ordinary Wiki administration, and much preferable to this policy and process. The charge was discussed, diffs were offered, various people had a say; it sounds like in the end they decided their "pedophile" was more of a common troll. A block was issued, the drama ended, and democracy, transparency and established policy had their day. What's not for you to like? Wnt (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)