Wikipedia talk:Pedophiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Florida hosting

As Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, doesn't it have to obey all relevant Florida state laws? I am not sure if any would apply here, just bringing it up. Also as this is a potentially massive public relations issue, one also has to consider what would be best for the project. Perhaps this should involve the higher-ups. — MichaelLinnear 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm largely trying to sum up what the general consensus view has been in the past year. Jimbo et al are welcome to pitch in if they want. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So, if I understand this correctly, the bottom line is that:
  • ...POV editing or advocating pedophilia on talkpages is utterly unacceptable and could, and should, result in a block. Soliciting or grooming children for sexual purposes on Wikipedia will result in an immediate indefinite block and all available information handed over to the appropriate authorities.
We've certainly had problems in the past with editors who strongly pushed a pro-pedophile POV. But to say that "advocating pedophilia" should result in an immediate block would be a dramatic change in Wikipedia's practices. It is a vague standard and blocking standards should be clear and unequivocal. Other than one issue dealt with by the ArbCom, have there been any documented instances of grooming or solicitation? Can we list some examples of past cases that would be covered by this new policy? -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this policy is going to sink and for good reason. There are pedophile-disruptive labels, done to tick others off and not to say 'I'm a pedophile!' in a true sense of the word, and those are generally not tolerated. (Old versions of User:SPUI's page spring to mind). And then others, like User:Zanthalon, do it in a way that in no way disrupts anything, and infact bring a great amount of interest and ability to developing encyclopedic content. This policy is just going to crash and burn. -Mask 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This may be the elephant in the room, but didn't the arbitration committee just wrap up a case that touched on the problem of inappropriate conduct between an adult and a minor on the Encyclopedia? — MichaelLinnear 06:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but how does this proposal change how such cases would be handled? That case was apparently rather murky, so it's hard to draw clear lessons from it. Obviously any illegal activity on Wikipedia, whether child grooming or drug dealing, is inappropriate. -Will Beback · † · 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes they did.... although, having followed it (both on wiki and off) this was less of a pedophile-grooming issue. The user in question made, through IM, some inappropriate comments that ended with a 'maybe if I was older' (paraphrase) and then said user went postal when the girl started dating a age-appropriate wiki user. The user was an asshole for hitting on a teenage girl and making threats to the new boyfriend, as well as the girl, but there was no grooming from what I saw. There were emails that only arbcom saw, so I may be incompletely informed, but the impression left was that the emails were about the threats. -Mask 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say he was a pedophile just that there was definitive misconduct. — MichaelLinnear 07:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to make a note here, since reading over it I realize I sound like looking around the wiki for underage booty is a perfectly appropriate activity. It's not. People who do this should be banned. Im just taking the posistion that self labelling, with no disruptive intent, nor any disruptive result, shouldn't get you banned. Shunned by a large majority of people, but thats what happens. If a pedophile wants to label as such for some legitimate, not shock value, is okay with the shunning, and doesn't persue illegal activity, leave it. The encyclopedia has benefitted greatly from the work done by User:Zanthalon who's not only an editor, but is notable enough in the outside world to have his own page at Lindsay Ashford. The pedophiles who troll for kids do not put up labels. It's simple. Its like a massive, polluted damn is breaking, and the plan is to find a way to fix the pollution. The solution is to a different problem then was purported. -Mask 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catching up with reality

I realize that my latest edits are likely to be viewed as controversial, but I strongly feel that it is the only responsible thing to do. Let's stay focused and on what we're here for, practically. The practice of allowing editos to identify as pedophiles is discreditable and it needs to stop. El_C 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. No other organization would react with such nonchalance to having admitted pedophiles in their midst. — MichaelLinnear 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit, I came here expecting to find something different -- what we have actually doesn't sound too far off from what I had in mind. The current introduction sounds a bit more like an essay than a policy, but I'm not quite sure how I'd fix that, or if it needs to be fixed just yet. Should we mention the possibility of banning over this? I'm not sure that it should be automatic, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. Other than that, is the note about handing over all relevant information appropriate (or even true, considering we have no apparent mechanism to do so)? Perhaps it would suffice to say that we will likely cooperate with any legal inquiry (as is already plainly declared in the privacy policy). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If it came to that, wouldn't it be a WP:OFFICE action? — MichaelLinnear 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it would have to be, and I don't believe we can speak for the office. Unless we want to ask them? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see any difference between someone identifying as a paedophile or as a furry, or as a democrat for that matter. Either users can self identify as anything, or they can identify as nothing. Or at least this is what common sense would dictate. (Incidentally, I would prefer no self-identification; identifying with a group of people is likely to be disruptive whatever the group). Dave 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I think this is succinctly worded and would support adoption of this as a policy. —Doug Bell talk 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[If I'm reading the timing correctly,] I'm glad you approve of my changes, Doug. El_C 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You are, I do. —Doug Bell talk 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, I just need the authority to block people who are grooming or stalking children for illegal sexual activity. Once I got that, then there is nothing much we can do, unless we want to allow PeeJ and others to bully us around to get content controlled. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[You've always had that authority.] I vehemently disagree that support for my changes means we allow the PJ site to bully us. El_C 07:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO El C, I feel like because of someone pointing out the PeeJ posting about us, that is why I am seeing most of this. However, I just do not want PeeJ being able to control content by bullying us (in my view) about the kind of people we should allow and we should ban, even if the person is not breaking our rules. Regardless, now I have that clarified, I feel confident about trying to deal with the issue effectively if it ever arises (I hope not, but my faith in a majority of the community is not that great). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Zach, with respect, I take your point, but let's forget about PJ's role and focus on the underlying arguments I posed. El_C 08:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing new - delete it

Self-identifying as a pedophile is disruptive. Well, yeah. So is self-identifying as a white supremacist, or a killer of Palestinians. Existing policy covers this fine. Existing policy discourages anyone from revealing detailed personal information and provides a means for removing it. Wikipedia should not make a statement that could be construed as a legal guarantee that such information will be removed. The statements on the linked website are biased and controversial, referring to the userbox battle over the pedophilia userbox as involving an actual pedophile, which was never established and doesn't seem terribly likely to me (more likely a troll). Enacting this policy would have no effect other than to create the negative impression that "Wikipedia has a problem with pedophilia". Just enforce existing policy and we'll be fine - I recommend deleting this page before this silly pedophilia website decides to pony it up as further evidence of our aiding and abetting child molesters. Deco 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Enacting this policy would have no effect other than to create the negative impression that "Wikipedia has a problem with pedophilia"

The negative impression?(!) El_C 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not see what this proposal would accomplish. It just restates things already stated in other places: disruptive editors will be banned, children shouldn't use wikipedia without supervision, wikipedia isn't censored, etc. Kaldari 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The cat's already out of the bag I'm afraid. — MichaelLinnear 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with pedophilia. The very existence of this policy seems to say that we do, that this sort of thing happens all the time, which is ridiculous. We might as well have a Wikipedia:No devil worshipping. There have been a few high-profile cases, but as long as this sort of thing occurs rarely, it can and ought to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If you really start running across pedophiles on recent changes on a regular basis, well then it's time for a policy. Deco 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the how devil worshipping and pedophilia are even remotely interchangable. El_C 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In point of fact, we have several users who self identify as 'devil worshippers', 'satanists', 'setites', et cetera. Which is perfectly legal, and indeed protected, religious expression in many countries... including the US where Wikimedia is hosted. --CBD 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have a problem with people claiming to be pedophiles on thier userpage? How many users do we have who do this? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3 or 4 I think. --WikiSlasher 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Theresa, respectfuly, it isn't so much the question of how many but rather what sort of standrads do we wish to set, as well as how we would like to portray ourselves to outsiders as volunteer editors of a collaborate project aimed at writing a free encyclopedia. Regards, El_C 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Making specific policies for things contradicts a number of generally accepted concepts, like WP:BEANS and WP:DENY. A specific anti-pedophile policy is just going to imply that it's a significant issue here, when it's mostly been a matter of trolling and the occasional very creepy contributor. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I ran a count on a database dump about a year ago. Including the terms "pedophile", "boylover", "girllover", and "childlover", there were 14 users. One of those users was a major contributors; one an administrator. Eight of the users edited mostly pedophilia-related articles from a pro-childlove slant. The remaining four hadn't edited much at all. --Carnildo 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about a specific policy addressing pedophile editors. But I will say that we've had problems in the past with some strong POV-pushers. One of them, Rookiee (talk • contribs), has become notorious ouside of Wikipedia (see Google). Another, Paroxysm (talk • contribs) aka 24ip (talk • contribs), known for triggering the pedophile userbox matter, has changed usernames so often I've lost track. I'm not sure what real benefit Zanthalon (talk • contribs) (cited above) has provided either. There are current editors whom I won't name that are still maintaining pedophiles articles, though less aggresively. So yes, this is a problem.
OTOH, Wikipedia has problems with POV pushers of every stripe. The main difference here is the greater importance placed on child abuse by the community and the encyclopedia. I tend to think that the best solution may be better enforcement of existing Wikipedia editing rules. Creating policies for specific "POVs" will cause more problems than are solved. - Will Beback · † · 10:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's de facto covered by Wiki policy and it would be perhaps problematic in the future if Wikipedia did have a specific policy for this, but perhaps deliberately causing trouble by admittance to certain things should be given a mention on an existing policy page? Schizmatic 10:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So maybe 20 users tops out of thousands? Having a policy page specifically to deal with these few editors is daft. Let's delete this page and modify the userpage policy instead. Can we at least all agree to do that? (how we modify that page is, of course still up for debate). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand what is the big deal with this "Pedophile" business.

I really don't. Pedophilia is illegal, yes. But how is an editor identifying oneself as a pedophile anymore than an editor identifying themselves as a tax-evader or shoplifter or security hacker? Sure, it's not a good thing. Someone who claims to like little kids like that on their userpage is unlikely to get a lot of support if say, they went for adminship.

Anyone can claim to be whatever they want, whether or not it's true. So really, Wikipedia doesn't have any responsibility to deal with people who "claim" they are interested in something illegal (as long as they're not actually *doing* anything illegal on wikipedia).

So i really don't see this needs to exist.

  • This guideline says people can't identify as a pedaphile on their userpage. If it is inappropriate for people to identify as doing something illegal in RL on wikipedia, then what we need is a general guideline. What's so special about pedophilia?
  • This guideline covers issues about protection of children and their privacy. Only very recently, we had a proposal for a "protecting children's privacy" policy - which (after much debate) failed to gain consensus. A lot of good points were bought up during the discussion for that policy proposal about why we really do not need to establish a policy/system to protect children's privacy here on wikipedia.
  • This guideline says that identifying as a pedaphile is disruptive. If this is what consensus says, then we can deal with it the same way we deal with all other forms of disruptive behaviour. We already have guidelines covering what is acceptable on userpages, and those seem to cover people being disruptive by making claims such as "i'm a pedophile", as demonstrated by the last time a pedaphile userbox appeared.
  • This proposal says that grooming children for sexual purposes on wikipedia is not allowed and people will be banned. We already have a policy that covers that - wikipedia cannot be used for illegal activities. We don't need a seperate guideline for pedophilia.

So in conclusion, i don't see why this needs to exist. If it's to protect children's privacy...well, we had WP:CHILD but it did not gain community consensus. If it's to say calling oneself a pedophile is not allowed - then we already have existing guidelines that covers it fine.

I don't see why we need to signal this individual possibility out and make a big fuss about it. Despite all the light and smoke, we've never actually had a problem with people using wikipedia to exploit children, or pedophilias (just people who claim to be. Then again, we also have a userbox for people who want to claim they're immortal.) --`/aksha 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about definition

The way this is currently written I am not sure what is meant by "identifing as a pedophile" short of using the exact word "pedophile". It is currently too vague for me to form an opinion on this proposal.--BirgitteSB 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness and the whole 'won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!' aspect of this makes me extremely wary of this as a policy. I mean, there are plenty of groups out there that do bad things; why don't we have a policy against them? 'Oh, pedophiles are really bad, I think everyone can agree on that' -- I just don't think this is a good enough reason to form this. I'm sure WP:OFFICE takes things very seriously, and things are dealt with appropriately in the first place. JoeSmack Talk 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Joe, here. It seems the silly season has come early this year. Current policies are broad enough to cover any infraction this policy is supposed to address. Jeffpw 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killed with a stick

Um, no. Particularly with the same participants as the wheel war around this time last year. This is not supposed to be an annual event. - David Gerard 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyed - please restore my version.

This policy was radically chenged from what I had originally written, so I am unsurprised this was deleted and protected. My version merely brought together all precedents regarding our actions towards pedophiles, from both the community and Jimbo. I said that while simply identifying as a pedophile was acceptable on Wikipedia , soliciting children and editing in a pro-pedophilia manner would result in a permanent block. This is what we currently do to pedophiles - I want this policy as a link to point to when we are accused of supporting pedophiles, which is what we stand accused of.

However, El_C came along and turned it into "if you are a pedophile, you will be blocked", which was in absolutely no way representative of how we act on Wikipedia, nor how we will ever act as it goes against our principles of anyone can edit if they obey our editing guidelines. I therefore ask David Gerard to restore my version (and protect it if he wants), rather than El_C's unilateral version which is heavily criticised above. We cannot shut down all reasonable debate because some admins got into a wheel war last year. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No! Please read above. It's not the version that is criticised, (that would be delt with by editing) it's the existance of a page like this that is criticised. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just feeding the issue at all with a policy proposal strikes me as utterly counterproductive. This one really shouldn't be fed via atmospheric idiocy. Everything in it is arguably covered by present policy and practice, and having a page to thrash out carefully-defined black-and-white boundaries of stupid is probably not a useful or helpful idea to writing an encyclopedia. The talk page is still there and I have no doubt discussion will continue. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is in fact an elegant and simple rule that follows obviously from the core policies; if so, this'll be a place it can emerge from - David Gerard 18:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, please see this (specifically, my replies to ElC's questions) Raul654 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh noes!

Perverted Justice says Wikipedia is one big conspiracy to rape every child in the world. Looks like we've been found out :( Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in fact MySpace or any other social network. It's a project to write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 18:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Oh noes indeed!

There are some very serious issues at stake here. User:Yaksha asks above "how is an editor identifying oneself as a paedophile any more than an editor identifying themselves as a tax-evader or shoplifter or security hacker?" The core of this problem is right there in that question. In our wildest fantasies (well perhaps not very wildest) many of us (certainly me) would love to evade tax - love to be clever enough to hack into computers - even perhaps owning something from a shop we can't afford in real life - what most of us do not do in our dreams is sexually molest children. That has to be a big and resounding very public NO - we do not do it, we do not want wikipedia editors to do it, we do not want in any way to do it, and more importantly we do not want to be seen in any way shape of form to be associated with such thoughts or actions.

Some will perceive this as an old fashioned moralist point of view - Wikipedia is used by thousands if not millions of kids daily with the full and happy consent of parents who share that old fashioned moralist point of view (parents tend to hold such views!) - these parents check on what their kids are doing - Wikipedia is also used to by 1000s of kids daily whose parents do not check on what their children are doing - and it is because of them - We have to send a clear message that paedophiles will not be tolerated under any guise at all as recognised editors. That is a moral and legal duty of care we all share - whether we like it or not Giano 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, from Pedophilia:
In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children [...] A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University found that 32.5% of their sample — 80 adult male volunteers, 20% of whom reported some attraction to prepubescent girls — exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli.
Like many other illegal or immoral activities, the important thing is not that people don't think about it, but that people don't do it. There's nothing unique about pedophilia that requires special attention here. I also continue to assert that a specific policy regarding this would only serve to further associate us with pedophilia - people will ask themselves, why was it necessary? Deco 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact this conversation has arisen - makes it necessary and essential. Giano 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is Wikipedia now the thought police? To be honest, given some of the comments over at the Brian Peppers DRV I'm not convinced it isn't. Dave 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You decide - I don't know, I'm out of this conversation. Giano 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, for Pete's sake! Talk about bad logic. I may have an attraction to scraping my knuckles and making monkey noises when I read some of the comments here, but I don't identify myself as a simian impersonator. A person who comes here as "a train fan" is more than someone who thinks some trains are neat. A person who comes here as "a Furry" is more than someone who saw a manga once that seemed arousing. "Pedophiliac attaction" and "pedophilia" are as different as "homosexual thoughts" and "gay lifestyle." In fact, they're far farther apart, because pedophilia is illegal as well as viscerally repugnant to the extremest of majorities. Any Wikipedia editor self-identifying as a pedophile is someone announcing an agenda. Yes, we need a bold and clear stroke against anyone doing so. No, we do not need a policy like this one. To agree with David Gerrard (hey, it happens), writing down what is not allowed suggests that there are limitations, that some part is allowed. It isn't. Abuse children, and you will go to jail. Try to use us to abuse children, and we will ban you (not block you). Geogre 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying we should ban anyone who self-identifies as a pedophile, or are you saying we should ban anyone we catch using Wikipedia to try to find children to have sex with? --Carnildo 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Either/both. Self-identifying is evidentiary to an identity issue and advocacy and action. I think banning the action is clear. Banning the identification is just a time saver. I wouldn't ban someone who trolls occasionally by asking useless questions or trying to advocate for tolerating pedophiles, but I would ban someone coming here and putting "I am a troll" on his user page. How about you? Geogre 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If someone came here and declared on their user page that they were a troll, I wouldn't ban them unless they followed it up by trolling. --Carnildo 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • We do have situations where people have announced that they are pedophiles or that they intend to edit articles to better include a pro-pedophile POV, and then have edited in just that manner. We also have editors who haven't made any declarations, but who promote that POV, even aggressively. So it is a real issue. We do also get people who may announce that they're into pedophilia just for shock value. That isn't productive behavior either. All we need to handle these issues is a general community consensus that promoting pedophilia by declaration or editing is not acceptable. I think that consensus already exists. -Will Beback · † · 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
let me put this simply to you Carnildo. We ban anyone claiming to be a paedophile, we ban anyone who thinks it is clever to be a paedophile, in fact we ban anyone advocating paedophilia in thought, word or deed. Clear enough for you. Giano 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Before another blowout erupts, can I please encourage everyone to read this. ElC and I (in my capacity as an arbitrator) are discussing this very issue. Raul654 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There does not appear to be a divergence (at least in practical terms) between the position of the Committee, as outlined by Raul, and my own (I never claimed there was, on the contrary). See the above link for my latest thoughts. El_C 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"We do have situations where people have announced that they are pedophiles or that they intend to edit articles to better include a pro-pedophile POV....So it is a real issue." <<<of course, and we deal with them in the same way as we deal with anyone who aggresively edited articles to include a certain POV. Doing so is not acceptable, but as i said...what makes pro-pedophile POV editing so much more special and so much more evil and so much more unacceptable than any kind of strong POV editing on articles?

Nothing. People have a moral problem against pedophilia. Good for you. Wikipedia isn't here to provide moral guidance. I can assure you there're plenty of people who think homosexuality is just as terrible as pedophilia. The only difference is that pedophilia is actually legally not allowed. But it doesn't mean wikipedia also needs to pay special attention to it. --`/aksha 08:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "there're plenty of people who think homosexuality is just as terrible as pedophilia. The only difference is that pedophilia is actually legally not allowed" - Actually it is not the only difference - If that is truly your view, I don't think further discussion can be productive. Giano 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Giano is right. Not only is that not the "only" difference, it's not even a valid analogy, and every gay person should be as offended by that comment as every parent. Pedophilia is, by its definition, carnal love of an individual incapable of giving consent and incapable of resisting. Therefore, if you want an analogy, compare it to rape. Someone who comes along and announces that he's a pro-rape editor is much closer to a pro-pedophiliac editor than anything I can think of. The critical factor in pedophilia is that it is victimizing, and all the romantic fantasies that the pedophiles develop are testimony only to their delusions and unfitness, nothing else. Further, it is a crime that is quite properly punished very, very, very aggressively, and, rather uniquely, a crime that flourishes on the Internet. Therefore, Internet vendors of all sorts must be especially vigilant because we know they're already there, already using sources like ours, and there is a rich and horrid history on Wikipedia (and especially .de). Geogre 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How people define pedophilia is based on their cultural background. Saying pedophilia is "carnal love of an individual incapable of giving consent and incapable of resisting" is not an objective defintion, it's a definition based on your own moral beliefs and principals.
Even if you compare it to rape, my point still holds. A few hundred years ago, a lot of what we now call "rape" would have been perfectly acceptable. For example, a husband 'raping' his wife after marriage, would probably have been fine. In fact, in those days, it wouldn't have been called "rape" at all. Now, things are different. In our culture now, Rape is a serious crime, a moral offense. But this clearly shows how our attitude towards rape is a result of our culture and our morals - if you lived in middle ages europe a few hundred years ago, you may be thinking differently too.
Having a guideline/policy on pedophilia has no practical application - it doesn't achieve anything new that isn't already covered by our other guidelines (e.g. don't disrupte to make a point, no POV pushing), however, it does give the impression that we ban people on moral grounds. That people can't claim to be a pedophile simply because it's "morally wrong". This is not true. Wikipedia doesn't have a moral responsibility to its editors, or readers for that matter. Wikipedia doesn't need to make an official stand on whether pedophilia is morally right or wrong, it's really none of our business. --`/aksha 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Grow up! Giano 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No, i really think you should. Grow up and learn to deal with the fact that what you think is 'right' isn't actually universally right. --`/aksha 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda

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

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

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

However, opinions may differ. What is the position of others? Fred Bauder 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good God, I just realized I agree with Giano... Fred Bauder 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
10%? That is shockingly high, are you sure this research is accurate? --WikiSlasher 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure, but, in fact, according to this information Pedophilia#Extent_of_occurrence the number is low. However, it is well known that that reference work is unreliable. Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"University males' sexual interest in children: predicting potential indices of "pedophilia" in a nonforensic sample." Fred Bauder 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fred, pedophilia is not "finding persons below the age of legal consent attractive." Finding persons below the legal age of consent arousing is simply going to be the case, inasmuch as age of consent is a legal definition rather than a biological one. Furthermore, an 18 year old may find a 15 year old extremely attractive, when the same person at 25 would not, because people find others roughly in their own age group attractive. All of that has diddly to do with pedophilia, which is an exclusive or dominant attraction to the adolescing or pre-adolescing individual. Furthermore, pedophilia as an action and as a legality is the soliciting or perpetration of sexual acts on minors, whom society has determined to be incapable of giving consent. It is, therefore, without exception a criminal act. Confusing "she's hot, and she's 17" with pedophilia is a distortion that apologists of pedophilia and reactionaries seeking funding for "curing" or "preventing" pedophilia will tout. Geogre 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Pedophilia is commonly used to mean sexual assault on a child. Fred Bauder 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the common practices among pro-pedophilia editors on Wikipedia is to remove any assertions that child molesters are pedophiles or that pedophiles are child molesters. So if someone is arrested for child molestation some editors may remove the label "pedophile" from their article on the basis that we have no proof of the subject's actual inclinations, only their actions. For example, Craig Sweeney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). It appears that the motive is to remove a stigma from pedophilia. -Will Beback · † · 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what we've been seeing in miniature here, too. The goal is to confuse attraction to minors (usually high end) with dominant or exclusive attraction to minors (pre-pubertal) in the reader's mind so that the reader will say, "Oh, wow, well, you can't get upset at that." It is also then to remove the most critical factor, which is that children cannot consent, legally or morally, and they cannot resist, and therefore these apologists are trying to get Wikipedia editors (who tend to be near the ages of the victims of pedophilia) to think that "pedophilia" is a normal, harmless, fun choice. I'm with Giano: I won't even play the language games on that issue. There is no point, when I already know that younger editors can't follow the arguments or separate themselves sufficiently from the issue to judge. Geogre 11:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has to take the stand that paedophilia is wrong in thought, word and deed. No shades of black or white - if an editor is known to have those inclinations (however latent s/he professes them to be) they must be sent packing in no uncertain terms. Giano 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should focus on disruptive editing and proclamations on user pages. Fred Bauder 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree Fred, any hint - get rid. Giano 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If I was project leader I would be likely to do that but I'll say something everyone should be able to agree on: Confusing the terms used and what things mean to put a slant towards a particular point of view can't be justified. With regards to user pages we have to not let any hint of advocacy, after all: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. "We want people to accept our attraction as normal and not a threat to children yada yada yada-" no, we cannot have that and it is disruptive. --WikiSlasher 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/d/Wikipedia_talk%7EPedophiles_cfcc.html"