Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Blocking self-identified pedophiles[edit]

The userbox Template:User pedophile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, Joeyramoney (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - children edit Wikipedia! We don't want Wikipedia to be the kind of place where things like this happen. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't we already have at least one article that was written by self-identified pedophiles? --cesarb 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this some strange attempt to test the limits of the 'all are welcome regardless of their views' policy which is one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia? Or can you actually point to the section in the blocking policy which justifies this? David | Talk 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an application of common sense. There is universal condemnation of pedophiles (and rightly so). Allowing known pedophiles to edit could also endanger younger users. I'd support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Only three small problems with that.
  1. Allowing unknown pedophiles to edit (which we already do) is at least as dangerous as allowing known pedophiles to edit, and probably more so.
  2. Allowing pedophiles to edit at all is not dangerous. Or perhaps the missing apostrophe added by a pedophile will cause harm to your children?
  3. Having condemned pedophiles, will we next move onto terrorists? How about drug dealers? Islamic fundamentalists? Doctors who support euthanasia? WP:NOT a morality brigade. Stevage 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely the safety of young Wikipedians (from possible harm of the variety reported to have occured due to chatroom encounters) and Wikipedia's reputation as a safe for all website counts? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any private chat areas on Wikipedia, and we keep all edits. Have you considered the possibility that (a) people who include the template may not actually be paedophiles but just including it to inflame other people, (b) Wikipedia may have users who are paedophiles but don't want to include the template and identify themselves as such for fairly obvious reasons? If the problem is the template, then delete it. But Wikipedia does not ban people merely because they have committed crimes, not even if the crime was murder or treason. So I don't see that this blanket ban is justified. David | Talk 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the safety of the younger Wikipedians (as in the chatroom incidents), not the fact that a user is a criminal or not. I'm also thinking of Wikipedia's reputation - we don't want parents to forbid their children from editing when they see confessed paedophiles roaming about. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that Joeyramoney also indicates that he is a mutant, that his user page is BS, and that he is 16. Under the standard definition of the term he can't be a pedophile because he isn't an adult yet. Sex between minors is not typically considered 'pedophilia'. --CBD 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Even at 16, I think he'd put a little thought into putting a "pedophilia" template on his user page. If he placed it there in error or as a joke, he can explain this on his talk page. If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we automatically block self-identified KKK or Nazis? Anyway, blocking for use of a template seems pointless — in this case, it's almost certainly a joke, and the kind of pedophiles that are actually going to be stalking children aren't going to advertise their problem on the userpage. —Cleared as filed. 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future. I'm sure it will be a rare occasion when someone identifies themself as a pedophile, but should that happen, that person will be blocked. If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I do think it's just common sense. Carbonite | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny, that analogy. Last I checked, people aren't blocked for being members of the KKK or being Nazis. Nor are they blocked for believing the Holocaust didn't happen, or being murderers, being rapists, being convicted fraudsters. They are blocked when they actually go and do something grossly inappropriate - like writing about how lynchings are a good way to keep the race pure, or how the Jewish conspiracy controls wikipedia, or threatening to hunt someone down and stab them - but, traditionally, we wait until they actually do that.
And, on a more pragmatic note, as many people have noted - I really doubt hunkering by {{User pedophile}} is going to be a productive way to actually find the people we might have to worry about... Shimgray | talk | 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all those hideously deviant views he has expressed about, er, obscure songs by the Who. To the best of my knowledge, we already do have self-identified (by actual words, and everything) paedophiles on wikipedia; I'm sure I remember someone screaming about it before. If you feel so strongly about this issue, dealing with them would surely be more productive than blocking someone who seems to be playing with userboxes. Shimgray | talk | 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Joeyramoney is a very silly boy troll, not a paedophile; I've no objection to blocking him for the former. But We don't block people for their sexual orientations. Condemnation of paedophile orientation (as opposed to activity) is certainly not something Wikipedia or its administrators should be engaging in. Markyour words 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
He's neither. He is a typical teenage boy... and while I found that a loathesome breed even when I was one I doubt it ought to be a blockable offense. --CBD 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad consensus seems to indicate that blocking people for their beliefs is unacceptable. -- Ec5618 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Pedophilia is a belief in the same way that hating all blacks is a belief. We don't want either here on Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Racist users are welcome on Wikipedia but they must leave their prejudices out of their article editing. Likewise any editor who edits an article to express the opinion that sex with children is good is liable to be blocked. But those who include the template are not doing that. Carbonite, I think you should lift your block as it seems to be against consensus. David | Talk 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not lift it. As I stated above, I also won't reblock should another admin see fit to unblock. I will play no part in allowing pedophiles (or those identifying themselves as such) to edit Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There was an article about pedophiles on Wikipedia a couple of months ago: "Online Encyclopedia Is a Gathering for Internet Predators: Who Is Editing Your Children's Encyclopedia?". Apparently, one of the leaders of the movement for "pedophile rights" has an account and edits pedophilia-related articles (pedophilia, childlove movement) to ensure that they are NPOV (as in, take into account the pedophiles' rights POV). It's a typical piece of sensational journalism, but it's interesting that no news agency picked up the story and ran with it. It was right around the whole Seigenthaler thing, so it's possible that story acted a smokescreen. Who knows what would happen if it were a slow news day and someone at CNN or ABC discovered this now. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind QuakeAID - and WikipediaClassAction.org - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. Reading that article may give you some idea as to the veracity of his journalism... Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We can't cower in the face of possible ignorant press reporting. The response to the Siegenthaler incident was not a complete ban on articles about living people, but a measured change about anons starting new articles. David | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
For those of the opinion that blocking pedophiles is wrong because it's blocking someone based on their belief, can anyone name another belief that is so universally condemned? Carbonite | Talk 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Holocaust denial. Don't think there's a snazzy userbox for it, but there's sure a lot of them on Wikipedia. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Or canibalism perhaps? Homosexuality, not too long ago? We mention sex, while not too long ago, that was strictly taboo.
Still, no matter what your personal feelings, or indeed, the personal feelings of everyone on the planet and in history, as long as an editor's feelings don't stand in the way of editing Wikipedia fairly, there is no problem. -- Ec5618 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. There's a fair percentage of people that could be classified as "holocaust deniers" to some extent. There are even occasional insinuations of denail by rather prominent people. Can you imagine a person in a powerful position even hinting or joking that they liked 8 year-old girls? Carbonite | Talk 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Richard the Lionhearted, et cetera... and you miss the point. Once you get into saying 'unacceptable - ban on sight' you've got to deal with the people who say the same about homosexuality, inter-racial marriage, et cetera. These things were 'universally condemned' once too... and still reviled by many to this day. There was a time (centuries ago) when pedophilia was generally accepted. Views change. I'm not saying that pedophilia will (or should) become accepted again, but that it is inherently wrong to persecute people for their beliefs - no matter what those beliefs may be. And in this case the 'vile horrible monster' may simply have been implying that he likes to have sex with people his own age. --CBD 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
People who beleive in/practice Holocaust denial, beastiality, eugenics, racism, murder, rape, vivisection, abortion, any religion you care to name, invading other nations, capital punishment, female circumcision, sexism, universal suffrage, slavery, counterfeiting, file sharing, terrorism, democracy, communism, lolicon, drinking alcohol, the KKK, homosexuality, gay marriage, evolution, etc, etc, etc, are or have all been villified and hounded to the same or greater extent by the majority of their society as peadophiles currently are. I am not aware of anyone who has been blocked for proclaiming support for any of these - as long as they do not violate NPOV or other Wikipedia policies. The same should be true about peadophilia - if we block paedophiles then we are violating the NPOV ourselves by proclaiming that one side is wrong. I will unblock anyone blocked solely for their beliefs. Thryduulf 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because real paedophiles that are intent on grooming on Wikipedia will really place a siren on their user page to indicate that they are indeed paedophiles. The template should be deleted, and while it might be worthwhile blocking people because they are paedophiles doing so on the basis of this template is crazy. violet/riga (t) 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to unblock. The kid's page is perhaps a good argument for banning non-encyclopedic userboxes, and maybe a good argument for banning 16-year-olds, and possibly a good argument for banning twits, but we really need to differentiate between banning people for who they are and banning people for what they do. Much as I loathe (for example) Holocaust deniers, until they start putting their crap on article pages, they're just people with stupid ideas. Since most teenagers are pedophiles by definition (since the law considers adolescents to be children), as already pointed out, he can't be one. So, if I were the sort of admin willing to unilaterally start block/unblock wars rather than discussing the issue, the kid would already have been (a) unblocked and (b) told in no uncertain terms his user page makes him have zero credibility and destroys any possible assumption of good faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Per the objections above, I have unblocked. For all we know, we could have a convicted murderer editing Wikipedia from jail, and I see no reason to object to that. If people are using WP to "pick up" children they deserve a ban; but if they're nonactive pedos, presently in jail, or people with a sick sense of humor that's not for us to deal with. >Radiant< 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am worried by the wording "no obligation to permit deviants to edit". Am I going to be next to be blocked? Morwen - Talk 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably it's like "no obligation" in the same way nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia/how all editors are welcome to edit at Jimbo's whim. --AySz88^-^ 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Morwen. There will always be enough of us 'deviants' (so classified by some group or another for whatever reason) around that this kind of thing will never happen. Completely 'normal' people are so rare as to be the most deviant of all. :] --CBD 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. Agreed, and for this reason I am blocking you because your philosophy deviates from the norm on Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if these editors have not violated any of our policies, especially the cornerstones like WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. (and haven't preyed on minors like *gasp* me), they shouldn't be blocked. If they start pushing the child-sexing POV or coming on to minors, then give no quarter. But otherwise...well, it's not our problem if they get caught, right? (If Jimbo/the Foundation has decreed that these perverts go, then I'm all for it. But until then, there is no reason to block some people just for admitting they want to have sex with minors.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I will lift, on request or when I notice, blocks on people that are unrelated to their edits or other valid rasons for keeping people off of Wikipedia. If someone is on death row for murder, and is somehow on the internet and is making good edits, then they may edit here. --Improv 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Helloooooo, moral panic. We've had pedophiles on Wikipedia for over two years and nobody's gotten hurt. User:Zanthalon, User:LuxOfTKGL among others. We've also had a mailing list thread about this here: [1]. I will work with Improv to unblock anyone who is being blocked for reasons unrelated to their contributions. Ashibaka tock 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Improv above. I have to add that whilst I find the block to have been made in good faith, I would ask that no-one issue a block on the basis of a user box displayed on a user page, but rather discuss the issue here first, for starters. Also, anyone with any concerns regarding someones paedophilic tendencies should ask themselves:

  • Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If yes, then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police. Hiding talk 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said. And in any case, bans are supposed to be reactive, based on blockable offenses? Beliefs aren't blockable offenses, so why assume guilty until proven innocent? Thoughts aren't inherently wrong, but actions can be. ~MDD4696 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. Giano | talk 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is like discussing abortion, there are legitimate concerns both for and against. First thing, that template must go, the TfD seems to be going in that direction so far. Also, to address your concern Giano, if a user has such motives, using that template will be the last thing he'll do. The users you are worried about are impossible to identify; banning the users who do use the template are probaly the harmless users without intention to harm anyone. Many'll probably use it as a joke! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Calm down everyone. The user in question was just trolling. Even if he did put that box up there to be serious, we would not know if he just was attracted to children (of some young or very young age, who knows...) or if he also tries to trick them into getting into his grasp. Also note that attraction to younger aged people was tolerated long ago, so an attraction alone is not strictly immoral, like Nazism. Although a serious age difference and the possible connotations of such a template do disturb me greatly. I don't mind if a racist or a zoophile or a person who is attracted to girls edits articles constructively. As long as they do not actually try to do anything. And as someone pointed out, active Pedos will likely act like normal people until it is too late. I do consider the context of such templates to be questionable, and like most userbox templates that get people angry, it was just an inflamatory, uncontructive peice of garbage. Nevertheless, it does not warrant an indef. block. Let us at least hear the voice of all before stripping it away on sight just because we reject someone's ideas or invuluntary attractions (such as perhaps homosexuality).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. DO NOT DELETE. Obviously, if other admins challenge it, then it is not as Speedy. It looks like a well colored pretty little template; not bold red or inflammatory threats. It is TfDed yes? Then go there and vote delete, that is what I am going to do (as opposed to unilateral deletion after it was challenged).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Less than a generation ago homosexuals were persecuted in small towns because it was assumed they were after little boys - which was rubbish. So you cannot equate homosexuality and paedophilia - the paedophile is after children no question. If someone claims to be that way, even in jest, get rid of them. Fast. Giano | talk 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No one is "equating" them...whatever that means. I am saying that "everyone HATES it" is a weak ad populum argument that sets a bad precedent here, if allowed as justification to indef. block.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, I sure am glad I live in such a wonderfully rational world where people who want to kill jews and blacks en masse are held in obviously higher regard than people who have sexual thoughts about children (i.e. doubleplusungood crimethink). // paroxysm (n) 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...While agree with TfD'ing the template, I do not agree with over the top comparisons like "If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi". Having an attraction is not the same as actually doing anything. I can not stress these points enough. It seems as if there is little sense of moral priority here: some of the comments here seem to suggest that people think that either you are a Pedo and the Nazis or good person. I see quite a gap between mass-murder and thoughts.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything in the Wikipedia namespace regarding things like moral panics? --AySz88^-^ 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I now understand how deeply stupid (in the best of faith) ideas grow in the depths of Wikipedia: anyone with half a clue runs screaming in case their brain melts and falls out their head, and the stupid discussion grows feeding on itself. Anyone who thinks this template was put there as anything other than a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks has judgement too grossly defective (in the best of faith) to take seriously - David Gerard 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's try assuming good faith, please. Your comments on this issue have been condescending, inflammatory, and not at all helpful. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Could not have said it better. Thanks for deleting and creating blank. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this fall under WP:NOT, specifically the censorship for minors section? If anything identifiying themselves would allow us to atleast monitor their actions? If we ban them they will just come back, under anon IP, or another username. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I created it because I thought it might be useful, not as a "vehicle for trolling and personal attacks." // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
... - David Gerard 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconding DG's comments. But the idea of blocking people for using controversial templates is stupid. The Land 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And not allowed, please read WP:BLOCK, this would not be a valid reason for blocking. Prodego talk 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Carbonite was genuinely trolling for pedophiles, as he claims or simply trolling for gullible admininstrators. By the very nature of the troll, he was bound to find one or the other. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So, someone creates a stupid template. Then stupid people use the template. Then we get into this stupid discusion. So, I say we all go and do something less stupid. Wheee!.--Sean Black (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am seriously going to lobby Brion to allow us to block 0.0.0.0/0. Sometimes it would be a great deed to the encyclopedia. Think of all the sockpuppets, pagemove vandals, and other terrible people that have been located on that range. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Concur. All of our bad and stupid edits come from within 0.0.0.0/0. This cannot be allowed to continue. Indeed, I think we would see a significant drop in server load if we were sensible enough to block this range - David Gerard 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
But it would cause so many autoblocks! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And we should stop friends of gays from editing, as well. The Land 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That's already policy - David Gerard 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I would hate to see this turn into a witch hunt. I think the template was a bad joke, nothing more. I don't think it should be that big a deal. Unless a user actually shows signs, meaning actually being a pedophile, then he/she shouldn't be blocked. I think I misread something too. Above my comment here it says:
we should stop friends of gays from editing
and the response:
That's already policy
You are all making it sound like you want to block anyone who has an original thought in their head. I think unless someone's actually vandalizing, I don't think they should be blocked for thier beliefs. — Moe ε 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The imidately proceeding part of the conversation was a joke.Geni 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, convicted paedophiles should be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia. I believe in the rights of people irrespective of class, creed, orientation, gender, etc but morally I draw the line at criminal acts, and potentially criminal acts, involving the sexual exploitation of young people. Many Wikipedia users are themselves children. Many registered users are children. The claim that everything is above board and open is patent nonsense. Paedophiles groom children for exploitation. A paedophile here would have no difficulty in doing that. All they need to do is to target people they know are underage children here through dishonest friendships on talk pages, then use the private emails to make direct contact and use their status as a registered user, or even an admin, to gain the trust of the young user. We already have claims of users tracing private telephone numbers of other users. One user was subject to verbal abuse from someone who stalked them through tracing their whereabouts. In those cases both the victim and the stalker were adults. The idea of what could have happened if one of them was a child and one a paedohile who used Wikipedia to get in contact with them is too horrifying to contemplate. One such scandal if it happened and became public in the media or a court case would destroy's WP's reputation and lead to boycotts by schools, bans by parents, media condemnation, and a host of other problems.

I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Wikipedia who in any way abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them immediately to the police. IMHO paedophiles have no place on this encyclopaedia and should leave or be banned. Criminals who are child rapists don't belong on an encyclopaedia frequented by children. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt you'll find any opposition to this. —bbatsell ¿? 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I will happily oppose Jtdirl's comment. You can't be "convicted" of pedophilia; that's nonsensical. You're making gross generalizations and generally equating all pedophiles with child molesters, which is a claim you'll have to back up with facts. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to the following statement, which I should have made clear: "I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Wikipedia who in any way abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them immediately to the police." I absolutely agree with your statements. —bbatsell ¿? 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I agree with that too. If I saw anyone using the encyclopedia to make sexual advances I would probably give them {{bv}}. Ashibaka tock 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We should not be blocking any user based solely on self-incriminating statements about themselves, particular statements that are tangential at best to their purpose here. If someone is luring children for illicit purposes on Wikipedia, that's quite a good reason to block them. If someone is adding highly POV information to articles about pedophilia, and refuse to stop, the dispute should be sent to the usual channels. However, if a pedophile, or even a convicted sex offender, decides to add content about Alexander Hamilton or the Pacific Ocean, why should we care about what they've done in the past? No preemptive blocking. Deco 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we also create {{user murderer}} to identify individuals who are murderers. Then we can simply block on sight. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-6 05:59

Or {{user troll}}. 87.122.16.1

Ease of editing section break[edit]

Before I start I want to say that I've not bothered to read the entire discussion. I don't understand why a self-identified paedophile would be unable to edit an encyclopaedia or engage in a community. Since someone has already used the dubious term "deviant", I think it is important to distinguish firstly between child molesters/rapists and paedophiles. It is not against the law to be a paedophile (that is, having a sexual preference for minors), it is against the law to rape and sexually harass (the physical expression of paedophilia).

Secondly, why is it sensible to block according to peoples' non-voluntary sexual preferences. As was said early on, we wouldn't block someone because they held racist views - we would block a user if they inserted racist POV into an article. Also, we have, and do have, plenty of users who are paedophiles and who edit Wikipedia but do not put a box on their user page. In the 1960s homosexuality, like paedophilia and bestiality, was considered a mental illness. Would it therefore have been justified to succumb to a sensational hysteria and block all homosexuals (being that deviants are unable to edit rationally)?

Finally, I don't use userboxes myself. I don't personally elect to express myself through a combination of templates. Whether it is a good idea to have an infobox stating a sexual preference for minors is another issue. It is something that should be discussed by the community, not acted upon by those users who are undefiable and unquestionable. --Oldak Quill 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I almost forgot to reiterate that there are no provisos in our blocking policy to allow such blockings.

Your statement is somewhat inflammatory, since many people believe pedophilia is not "involuntary" (in fact, many people even believe homosexuality is voluntary), but this doesn't change the thrust of the idea, that the ability of a user to contribute usefully to Wikipedia does not depend on their sexual preference, morality, or even past criminal history (not to equate this things with pedophilia). Hell, a while ago we heard of a project where inmates were contributing from prison as part of a rehabilitation program, and it was received quite positively! As long as their contributions are positive and they do not threaten other users, I think we should accept anyone. Also, we wouldn't necessarily block if a user inserted racist POV - eventually, maybe, but assuming the edits were in good faith we'd first go through the less drastic channels of revert, discussion, RFC, etc. Deco 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing against WP policy in blocking someone who posts a userbox like that because it's intrinsically disruptive. Same for a Holocaust denier, not because they have any particular belief, but because throwing up a user box with an assertion like that is disruptive. However, I'd suggest that any block be preceded by a warning to remove the userbox. Wyss 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly legitimate to block SIPs without adopting a specific policy. They are not good for Wikipedia. Block them. Brainhell 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to the rationale of those who wish to ban an entire class of people (who haven't necessarily done anything wrong in wikipedia) to protect kids, but then claim we don't censor wikipedia for the protection of minors. (That isn't to say I'm fond of pedos, just playing devil's advocate... well I guess pedo's advocate, but I digress). -- Jbamb 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't judge book by its cover everyone should have right tto come here!!

Indefinite blocks[edit]

I have blocked User:Carbonite, User:El C, and User:Giano indefinitely for hate speech and inciting attacks on other users in regards to their statements on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles --Carnildo 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? I looked at Giano's contribs already: [2] and [3]. Both advocate banning self-professed pedophiles from Wikipedia. That's the hate speech you're talking about? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Look here--Sean Black (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a special, advanced form of satire, involving actual indefinite blocks. 9.2 degree of difficulty, if that's satire. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Er, yes, that's too much. I had assumed that he wouldn'thave done something quite so ridiculous.--Sean Black (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Replace "pedophile" with "homosexual", and would you still say it's not hate speech? Banning someone on the grounds of their beliefs or inclinations is not acceptable. Banning someone for their actions is. --Carnildo 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find hate speach on the list of things admins can block for. The block button is not a toy. Useing is without good reason is not acceptable.Geni 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. No call whatsoever for a community-imposed ban, particularly not without prior discussion. The Land 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Carnildo gets a slap on the wrist for violating WP:POINT.--Sean Black (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Aww that's it? — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. User:El C blocked Carnildo. I undid that one as well. Really, wheel warring is bad form. The Land

User:The Land, please sign your comment using four tildes. In response to your comment, I have never wheel warred. My block of Carnildo (who I never met prior to a few minutes ago) was designed to give him a timeout and to prevent other users from being blocked indefinitely. El_C 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, blocking someone does not switch off their admin powers, including rollback and unblocking. That's why admins aren't supposed to unblock themselves - because they can unblock themselves - David Gerard 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
IIRC a recent change in the code makes it so people who are blocked can't rollback, etc. The only thing I believe they still have access to is blocking/unblocking. You might want to ask Rob Church about it. (This was one of the changes that was necessary before we could go to polling on WP:RFR (requests for rollback privileges). —Locke Coletc 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So, remember when I said we should be doing things that are less stupid, like, say, working on the encyclopedia? Yeah.--Sean Black (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Noo...that's definately not what members of Wikipedia(R) would be doing! — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo also blocked several other editors along with El C, for publishing so called "hate speech". Hamster Sandwich 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo: minus several thousand for kneejerk reaction and, sorry to say it, stupid call. El_C: minus several thousand for wheel warring. Community: minus several million for letting it become this way. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Linuxbeak: minus <insert favored figure or a crapload of here> points for useless finger-waggling and undiscriminating hosing-down of the entire community. We need to get more specific here. For El C to block Carnildo to stop other good contributors from getting blocked indefinitely (sheesh!) for hate speech seems reasonable enough damage control to me. An RfC on Carnildo for misuse of admin tools would be better, but the amount of time people have to spend on that kind of thing when they could have been editing the encyclopedia is a bit ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Slap on the wrist for both users. RfA should ask questions like this-- "9. Would you violate WP:POINT if it were a really, really good point?" "10. Would you ignore all rules if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed?" Ashibaka tock 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
(In fact, my own opinions aside, the latter is a really good question to ask RfA candidates and I will go add it to some of the open requests. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Carnildo is not fit to be an administrator he is clearly misguided or plain stupid. Its about time people woke up here and either trained these incompetents or got rid of them. Giano | talk 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey hey woah woah calm down. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What... the... hell...! >Radiant< 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I am going to go and unplug the servers now. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conclusion: Don't block users for identifying as pedophiles. Don't block users for saying that they support the blocking of users identifying as pedophiles. If this was trolling, it was artful trolling, but let's get back to editing that encyclopedia thing, eh? — Matt Crypto 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is absurd. The handing out of indefinite blocks has gone way too far. The only way someone should ever be blocked indefinitely without going through Arbcom is if their only "contributions" consist of blatant vandalism. We're in danger of changing the de facto standard to anything that pisses off an administrator, unless you can get other administrators to defend you. Shame on Carnildo for pulling this nonsense, and shame on the others who have set the precedent for it. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It would help if people took a pretty damn blatantly overboard admin a fraction more seriously. Go snigger up your sleeves somewhere else, Linuxbeak, in particular. It is plainly entirely unreasonable for Carnildo to have effected a single one of those blocks, and for someone, nay some people, to talk about it here is entirely reasonable. It's what the page is for. -Splashtalk 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone here needs to take two big, deep breaths and remain calm. Everyone, please mind WP:NPA. — Moe ε 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't start with the patronising bluelinks already. -Splashtalk 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Knock it off, Splash. Moe Epsilon has said the only thing here worth mentioning, so come off it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all endorsing this action, but how were these blocks more unreasonable than the block that spawned this whole incident? —bbatsell ¿? 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So... we have blocks of two people (El C and Carbonite) who are admins and one person (Giano) who (IMHO) should be an admin, all for something that should have - at the very most - resulted in a minor ticking off and reversion. Carnildo's action - at best - can be seen as WP:POINT of a fairly extreme form requiring equal (if not greater) ticking off. Personally, it sounds like RFAr material. I don't agree with the initial blocking that led to this situation - people are entitled to their beliefs and inclinations, no matter how objectionable they may seem to us (actually carrying them out is, of course, another matter) - but the response from Carnildo was equally, if not more, inappropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In Carnildo's defense, I agree that attacking pedophiles is as objectionable as attacking homosexuals, women, etc. Don't suggest they weren't using hate speech, because from several points of view, that is exactly what they were doing. -- Ec5618 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference though. Engaging in pedophilia is almost universally criminal in the modern world, whereas most sensible nations are tolerant of homosexuals and women. A better analogy would be attacking murders or rapists. Now, maybe pedophilia desires are not something they can control, and maybe we should be tolerant towards them, but someone that acts on those desires is often destructive and criminal in a way that your examples are not. Dragons flight 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Criminal, yes, objectionable, certainly. But under no circumstances is attacking an editor for his or her personal beliefs appropriate. I'm not saying Carnildo was right in blocking these people without propor discussion, but I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to discriminate against anyone. -- Ec5618 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
wiktionary:pedophilia <-- Read this. It is impossible to "engage in pedophilia" because that doesn't mean anything. Equating pedophilia to child molestation is scaring people away from discussing a legitimate mental illness. Ashibaka tock 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ec5618 on this one. Blocking those 3 users without proper discussion is objectionable. But attacks are not permitable by any means. At the most those 3 should have got was a warning to not make personal attacks, not indefinitly blocked. Discrimination against anyone is not acceptable. — Moe ε 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks for 3 admins for some sort of hazy "hate speech"? This is completely unreasonable! Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Giano isn't an admin, at least in the technical sense. But otherwise, yeah.--Sean Black (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems clear that Carnildo is concerned about a very real risk which we have seen played out in many human societies: Moral panic driven hysteria. It is unacceptable to block users who make quality edits and whos behavior is without question simply because of their beliefs or conditions. We already can, and must cope with POV content, so there is no risk in allowing well behaved deviants to edit, and no resulting need for us to pass a moral judgment on their condition be it homosexuality or whatnot, even if such a judgment would be easy to make and easy to justify. It is utterly unacceptable for anyone to abuse our fear of amoral and harmful people and our desire to protect our children to silence people they disagree with. At first I thought Carnildo's response was less than optimum, and that reasoned discussion would be better... But after seeing responses like this, I have to agree with Carnildo's act. McCarthy style attacks are a poison we can not tolerate, and must be stopped in any way necessary. So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile just because I don't support a paranoid witch hunt against pedophiles, it will only serve to justify Carnildo's action more. --Gmaxwell 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile — A less personalized tone would greatly benefit, GMaxwell's approach to civil discourse, I think. At any rate, my response has already been submitted here, and that is all I will say on the subject at this time. El_C 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there some special rule that says you must have the last word? If so, I missed it. :) --Gmaxwell 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That rhetorical device is not "special" (& otherwise extraordinary to me) and remains at one's discretion as per right to leave. El_C 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo showed very poor judgement and lack of self-disipline, without so much as a Mea Culpa. Such actions cannot, nor should not, be tolerated in an admin. However disagreeable someone may be, they should never be indefinately blocked or banned for merely expressing their opinions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But do you think it is correct for admins to block nondisruptive users purely due to their moral outrage? What about stiring up fear in Wikipedia users in attempt to accomplish the same? In my view that too is not to be tolerated. So what we're left with is mistakes made all around. But the worst of which, wheel warring and false accusations were made not by Carnildo but by those who oppose him. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a hypothetical to consider-What If, instead of pedophiles, the users in question advocated banning, Software pirates or Copyright violators, would you still consider Carnildo's actions justified? Fear of one witch hunt does not justify carrying out another.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project, if they refuse to quit. But we must be sure that our actions are based on objectivity and not moral outrage. If someone values their ability to use wikipedia as a platform to advocate something over the goals of our project, then they are not our friends. --Gmaxwell 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project" So would I. And that's what these pedophile userboxes are basically doing. The only difference-it is a moral hotbutton to most, not all. But irregadless, it is an ILLEGAL activity and could hurt the project. Moral issues aside, this should be the primary consideration.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If someone is using Wikipedia to violate copyright, or to pirate software, then I'm all in favor of blocking. Likewise, I'm all in favor of banning a pedophile for using Wikipedia to troll for children. These are all actions. But banning someone for being something, whether it is a being a pedophile, or being a Muslim, or being a software pirate is not acceptable: these are things that someone is, and have no direct effect on their contributions to Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the only reason to perminately ban ANYONE is for their ACTIONS, not their opinions or their advocacy (which is what the pedophile user boxes amount to). I personally think pedophila is more of a choice than a sexual orientation. And advocating it, even if not acted upon it here, is not good for the project or the community. We can always find others willing to contribute who don't pose the same legal risks. Irregardless, your actions were clearly WRONG and show extreamly POOR JUDGEMENT. Do you acknowledge this?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was wrong in blocking Giano. He did not present an immediate threat to the Wikipedia project or to other users. --Carnildo 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you were wrong in all three cases. NONE of them did. The proper course of action now would be for you to offer an apology and your resignation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
None of these actions were acceptable. The whole sequence of events surrounding this ridiculous box are a disgrace. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 04:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The blocks where so Horrendously out of policy, that such admins should be blocked or desysoped, this is just ridiculous.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're still a loser. But look, haha, all the people follow you like lemmings off a cliff. Boy, is this debate sure headed downhill. Joeyramoney2 08:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for being a block-evading sock. Shall we increase the block length to Joeyramoney? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Joeyramoney2 could be any old troll trying to stir up trouble, not necessarily the same person as Joeyramoney the first. FreplySpang (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey trolls...don't feed em (now where is that cute lil sign..:) I'm not part of the "Cult of Jimbo" here. I don't think his every word is some holy pronouncement. But in this case he did the right thing. Most of the time he does. As for the rest, well, I'm willing to cut the man some slack.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Love and Sunshine on a rainy day[edit]

I've desysopped Carnildo for tonight, and leave it to the ArbCom to engage in careful thinking and discussion about what should be done in the longer term. In the meantime, no wheel warring please, and everyone please try to relax and let's write the encyclopedia, eh?

This is a rather historic moment. I believe with some degree of certainty that I have never personally desysopped anyone. On a Sunday night, too.

And a pedophile userbox prank? Please. David was right to speedy it as a blatant disruption. If people want to argue that we should have it, they can do so at their leisure. --Jimbo Wales 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunday night? ... we should be watching the Super Bowl! Ashibaka tock 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it was half-time at 1:18 (UTC). — TheKMantalk 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just stumble across this whole discussion. Sometimes I'm thinking that this whole project would simply fall apart and/or explode without you Jimbo, so thank you very much for your existance. --Conti| 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say something has been happening in the last few days. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I'd say the overall level of civility around here seems to have decreased sharply. I know correlation is not causation, but perhaps the sysops are a bit more stressed than usual due to the current events? --cesarb 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I Agree 100% that Carnildo should be desysopped, which for tonight, he has. I also agree that Civility on WP has dropped fast. Admins lately have been leaving, wheel warring, and plain just being uncivil. All this is going to turn into is one big RFC. I HATE to disagree with Jimbo but a "pedophile userbox prank" is very possible. — Moe ε 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
See my comments on Jimbo's talk page. I fear that the Great Userbox War of 2006 will either turn Wikipedia into a closed community or destroy it entirely. I, for one, would not want to be a part of a community that found "This user thinks that the SNES was the last great game console" to be an unacceptable statement on my user page, just as I would not want to work for a company that told me I couldn't put pictures on my cubicle walls. (Companies in the tech field that try to do this kind of thing often don't have very good results with it.) Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume Carnildo was desysopped primarily for indefinitely blocking three users without consensus. If so, perhaps Carbonite should also be temporarily desysopped for the indefinite block of a self-identified pedophile that started this incident. Superm401 - Talk 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Correct link (I believe): [4]bbatsell ¿? 02:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, of course. I have now corrected the link in my original post. However, you beat me to it with this post. I had been going through all the block logs to clear things up for myself, and I copied the wrong one. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we don't need an RFC about this. Both sides of recent debates about censorship, userboxes, etc. are understandable and don't need to escalate into wheel wars. What we do need is a resolution to the userbox debate specifically, because it is much too stressful. Ashibaka tock 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it all dates back to Kelly's mishandling of the userbox issue, along with Neo's behaviour over templates. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the issues, their mishandling of the incidents created such a breakdown in community trust that everyone seems to mistrust everyone else. It had been unravelling before then but their actions led to a firestorm of anger that is still raging, except that it is now directed elsewhere. So issues that could have been handled (reasonably) calmly are now mired in mistrust and a fear that someone else is going to try to bulldoze something through. As the fiasco over the Mohammad cartoons shows in the Middle East shows, a small issue can ignite an underlying unhappiness, impacting far beyond the original issue. So instead of community trust, we seem to have a lot of "I'll do it to you before you do it to me". But I don't know how we stop it. As WP gets bigger it becomes less manageable, less governable and less of a small community. Organic societies like ours can go one of two ways: they can work or they can implode. WP could go either way. It needs management to avoid implosion, but the problem is that its lack of rules at the start means that some will see that management as controlling and react against it. (Examples: if we had had a policy on userboxes to start off with, we wouldn't have got into the mess that has resulted, leading to Kelly's unilateral mishandling of the situation, in turn producing a negative reaction. If we had from the start a cohesive strategy for photo use we wouldn't have all the bad feeling caused by poorly judged deletions.) It is a complex problem. I expect theses will be written in the future not merely on Wikipedia but with titles such as "WIKIPEDIA: THE ORGANIC EVOLUTION OF A COMMUNITY", "MANAGING DIVERSE COMMUNITIES: THE WIKIPEDIA EXPERIENCE" and "CENTRALISING POWER IN ORGANICALLY EVOLVING ORGANISATIONS: THE WIKIPEDIA EXAMPLE". And the stuff on this page on on for example paedophiles will be analysed in academic papers and books. (Maybe I should write one of my own on WP! lol. But only when I finish the two I am currently writing.) FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove polemical things from Template: and Category: space, but let people subst: them first, and otherwise let users state rather inflamatory things on their user pages. That is, make it clear such things aren't officially endorsed, and they're discouraged from spreading, but that it's not censorship because people can say (almost) whatever they want on their user page. --Interiot 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the proper place to discuss that, use Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes (although I have given up on there because there are too many different opinions). I agree with Jtdirl that Wikipedia's community is becoming big enough to merit sociological studies; LambdaMOO was a hundredth of this size when they started getting into debates about democracy and freedom of speech. In case you're interested, in the end deciding policies by vote became just too stressful and the God-Kings took back their powers. Ashibaka tock 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Use of userboxes. This isn't exactly ready to announce, but the gist is there. The proposal is essentially "put the userboxes into the user namespace and treat them like any other user page." --bainer (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not create a separate namespace (Userboxes:) for them? Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Same problem as the current template space: we'd have to define rules for it, and nobody would be accountable for creating them. Ashibaka tock 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much of the blame just on Kelly. There are a number of long-timers who have taken the stance that their personal ideas of what is best for the encyclopedia are so important and urgent that there is no civil way to approach the issues. The rhetoric seems to be, "If I'm right, I don't have to be civil." And I think the community has somewhat unwittingly encouraged this behavior by making it pay off—the most expedient way to get attention for one's pet issue lately seems to be taking rash action that is bound to raise a ruckus. Allowing "ignore all rules" to be misused in this way with impunity has helped this kind of culture take root. --Tabor 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reason why it's time to take WP:IAR and flush it down the toilet. And to finally get a working de-sysopping procedure in place. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither ignore all rules nor process is important is an overriding philosophy on Wikipedia, what ever the most extremest editors might wish. There is also, may I add, WP:POINT, among many others. Physchim62 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, since we're doing novelty today, I'll put on my ruleslawyer hat. Ha! I bet you didn't know I had one!
So actually Ignore All rules, if taken together with together with don't be a dick and neutral point of view, actually does a pretty good job of handeling the encyclopedia. There's no similar trifecta including process is important, at this point in time. Kim Bruning 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you give the example derivations for some of the other wikipedia guidelines, based on those three? Kim Bruning 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that people here were ignoring all rules without the requisite common sense or duty to the encyclopedia, so they could in fact be punished for IARvio ;-). But wait for it! They also violated Don't be a dick. And forget NPOV, they weren't even anywhere NEAR the article namespace. In short, they broke all three rules in the trifecta, and thus should probably be blocked if not deadminned, which oh, by the way they were.
Sooooo you folks were saying we should flush those rules through the toilet, and get some new ones that may or may not have a similar outcome? Hmmm, odd logic! Kim Bruning 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Say someone comes along and says "I say Carnildo was not being a dick, but who disagree with him are and should be banned" (I don't think that, but regardless). How do we decide who is right? Evil saltine 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We can establish that somewhat objectively by checking diffs. Kim Bruning 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
But who makes the final decision? You talk about "deriving guidelines" from your three rules, but what do we do when two people derive things differently? Aren't rules necessary to codify how these conflicts will be dealt with? Evil saltine 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! A quick related note, I've noticed that there has been frequent allusion to moral panic during this discussion. I'd like to propose a wikipedia namespace'd guideline for identifying and avoiding these brushfires in the future. I don't think it's necessarily a silver bullet, but I hope that it might be a useful tool. User:Chairboy/Panic is where I've stored it for now, and I'd like some thoughts on the matter. I'm hoping it'll help, and hope to get some feedback on whether or not it's a dumb idea. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi... I leave for a month and wiki-admins descend into madness! I'm never leaving again...Sasquatch t|c 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysoppings[edit]

After several hours of deliberations and discussions with a variety of people, including several ArbCom members, I have temporarily desysopped everyone who in any way was 'wheel warring' tonight over the stupid trolling template. The ArbCom will be considering the whole thing and handing out a more permanent ruling on the whole thing very soon.

I am desirous that we have peace until morning. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record. See block log of User:Joeyramoney and logs of Template:User paedophile. -- Netoholic @ 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good move. Hopefully it doesn't escalate further after everyone's had some sleep. NSLE (T+C) 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that the issue of whether pedophiles should be blocked won't/cannot be decided by the ArbCom case? ArbCom can't end up establishing some sort of policy on blocking pedophiles if, for example, it considers the block of Joeyramoney made by Carbonite, right? (I'm a little afraid ArbCom might assume there's a consensus some way where there isn't one, which would be bad.) --AySz88^-^ 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the ArbCom is looking into issues of administrator conduct, not the actual pedophilia case. Either way, it is idle speculation on my part, and that's for the ArbCom to decide. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I cannot at this time say whether or not we will be addressing the issue of admitted pedophiles editing Wikipedia. One excellent suggestion for a guideline we will be considering is "Don't put anything on your userpage that could bring the project into disrepute". Raul654 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I see where El_C was wheel warring. TacoDeposit 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was his block of User:Carnildo. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You are correct - El C was included in the list of desysopped people because he blocked Carnildo shortly after Carnildo blocked him (which, on its face, is an abuse of admin powers). Raul654 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Your loss, Wikipedia. El_C 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: El C has blanked his talk page with an edit summary that indicates he's leaving/on an indefinite wikibreak. NSLE (T+C) 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Persuant to Jimbo's comment, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Due to the nature of this case, I believe the arbitration committee will be giving this top priority, so anyone who wishes to participate would be well advised not to delay. Raul654 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm way not to handle things.Geni 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. I don't know what to make of it at this stage. I'm just glad that this seems to be provoking some action on the wheel warring issues. Raven4x4x 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, you missed one. While 'temporarily desysopping' would be pointless in this case, you yourself were clearly 'wheel-warring' as well. If nothing else I think that shows how easy a trap it is to fall into and why discussion should generally take place before controversial admin actions. --CBD 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the logs you also gave David Gerard a pass, even though he was clearly 'wheel-warring' also. --CBD 12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what's up with the second bit? He's right there in the deletion log. Ashibaka tock 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I hereby declare that User:Jimbo Wales is not a sockpuppet of mine - David Gerard 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, he's mine. ;-) Rob Church (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Jimbo can't wheel war, because edict from him trumps all community process. Secondly: Ashibaka, I can see why you feel hard done-by, but would observe that all parties involved in this affair, including David Gerard (and me!), are being looked at by ArbCom: so there will be a fair hearing and one hopes a proportionate outcome for everybody. The Land 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Edict from jimbo does not trump the community unless he can show he has board backing.Geni 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In deference to your apparent intelligence, I shall assume that statement was intended as high comedy - David Gerard 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No as far as they exist this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the foundation rules. Of course in this case the point is moot because there is not community consensus (that we know of) because people chose to slug it out with admin tools rather than waiting for consensus to form.Geni 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd guess that he wins by default unless the rest of the board shows up and says otherwise. --cesarb 13:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's true. And Jimbo technically still has the power to completely override the findings of ArbCom and everyone else to set his own ruling, though, as he himself as pointed out, he doesn't plan to do that at all. --Deathphoenix 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really becuase that clearly doesn't apply to arbcom members. In reality the odds of the board going against a jimbo descision are so small they can be safely ignored.Geni 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With all the desysoping going on lately, wikipedia is going to need some new leadership, someone stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers, less likely to create/provoke scandals--I-2-d2 12:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm suggesting that I should be nominated, but I certianly wouldn't turn it down if I was--I-2-d2 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And out of the post-pedophile-wheel-war desolation, when all hope appeared lost, a hero emerged...Babajobu 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Since a significant percentage of our current problems can be traced to people not knowing when to walk away I think not.Geni 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I don't know when to walk away?--I-2-d2 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you did respond to that comment... "stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers" does not strike me as the kind of person who would find it easy to walk away.Geni 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

..I just have to ask, WTF were these people thinking? How did they see this as the proper thing to do in this situation? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In so far as Karmafist's unblocking, I think he did the right thing. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Workshop. —Locke Coletc 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well unblocking without agreement from the blocking admin usually is to be avoided, especially in a wheel-waring environment. However, I no longer agree with the 1 week block. The newbie in question was mainly adding good faith edits (albiet he has a short edit history), and the Pedofile thing was a joke as he was 16 (not a funny joke though). Also, people need realize that "pedophile", by definition, is not a inherently "rapists" just like heterosexuals are not inherent rapist of the opposite sex...Yes, the template could easily be interpreted to refer to "rape", but it at least deserved some minimal discussion, such as the TfD. I wish people would actually know the definitions of words they through around and start using to bash other people. People just love any excuse to bash criminals, most likely to fluff up their own ego while ignoring their own faults. If people put reason, common sense, and process over emotion and blind, incorrect, and uncivil statements...none of this would have happened. Jimbo appears to not even have researched the newbie's edit history. I acted to hastely earlier by supporting the block.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
<offtopic> Under-age sex is (generally) considered rape, even if 'consenting', because people under the age of consent are not (generally) considered capable of giving informed consent. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
While I don't agree with everything else in Voice of All's note, I agree that a one-week block is quite excessive. An otherwise decent new user who makes one stupid userbox should have been let off with a warning not to create sophomoric templates. He shouldn't be punished for the fact that admins weren't mature enough to handle the situation without wheel warring, multiple desysoppings, wikidepartures, et cetera. That reflects on us more so than on anything he did. Babajobu 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-egg omelette and an auto-desysopping protest[edit]

All the three indefinitely blocked "miscreants" Carbonite, El C, and Giano are now taking wikibreaks. :-( The de-sysopping of El C is most unfair IMO. If that's what he gets for being a great admin and indefatiguable peacemaker on contentious pages, I won't be using my own admin buttons either (until his are restored). Bishonen | talk 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, is there something I missed? What I see is that El C blocked Carnildo after Carnildo blocked El C, which looks like a blatant abuse to me. If I missed something, Jimbo probably did too.. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Though Carnildo did infef block for no reason. How in hell's bathroom did he become an admin in the first place?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good. Maybe the rest of us can discuss this calmly now. There is no need for emotive language. -- Ec5618 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo is the true villian of the peace here. I call upon him to do the right thing and resign as admin. The rest, if they have not already, should be reinstated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, there is no need for emotive language. Grammatically correct language would be nice though. -- Ec5618 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
ElC and Karmafist are outstanding admins. Carnildo, on the other hand, clearly lacks good judgement and temperment. It would save Arbcomm a LOT of trouble if he simply admitted this and resigned. Or don't admit it and resign. I'm not being emotive...simply stating the facts from my perspective and what should be done about them. There's also no need for snide comments about grammar.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My Reply To This[edit]

It's an unfortunate symptom of leaders these days, both with Dubya, and apparently with Jimbo... the ends justify the means. You've likely already seen the contribs, so I won't bother with that.

The Pedophilia Userbox issue has shown just how dysfunctional, hotheaded and lawless our community has become.

Here's what I saw...

  • Carbonite said he'd block any Pedophiles, basically just for being Pedophiles rather than any rule or guideline.[5]

The only person who fit this was Joeyramoney (talk · contribs), who had less than 100 edits, making Carbonite a WP:BITE/WP:AGF violator, putting Ashibaka in the right here, trying to stem a huge knee jerk reaction.

  • After being unblocked, Joeyramoney voted on the TFD regarding the userbox, in a fairly repentent tone, likely from a self Victim blaming after his treatment from Carbonite. [6]
  • Jimbo, likely wanting to sweep this under the rug before any major media got wind of it, but forgetting that these things seem to happen just about once a month or so now (Kelly Martin, The No Ads Project, Wikipedians for Decency, Siegenthaler, Fair Use, etc.), IARed and Wheel Warred to block Joeyramoney for a week, like Carbonite, violating WP:BITE and WP:AGF, but that's no big deal since he's violated WP:AUTO multiple times, despite the fact that he said it was a faux pas to do so.
  • Me, wanting desperately to believe that there is some rule of law on Wikipedia, unblocked Joeyramoney since he hadn't really done anything wrong other than being a silly teenager (which we have to AGF since that's what he says on his talk page) and wandering into this mine field.

Like i've tried to say, at the top of my lungs, for the past several months, this is a slippery slope. If we block people just for being pedophiles, a perception will arise that we are biased against them, and Pedophilia, as well as any other related article will be seen as automatically POV by outsiders since the people "running" Wikipedia don't allow Pedophiles to add their side. Today it's Pedophilia, what will be next tomorrow?

Hell, Jimbo Wales is about as POV as Bill Gates is on Encarta[7], if someone were to add a "criticisms" section, let me ask you, how quickly would that be reverted? Even if it was NPOV and properly referenced, I could almost guarantee you that given the current state of things here, an accolyte, if not Jimbo himself, would get rid of it almost immediately.

Where We Can Go From Here[edit]

I had hoped that the community would eventually address this, and it seems to be slowly creeping towards it, but there are two roads we can take from here.

The High Road
Everyone, even Jimbo and the Arbcom, is bound by the laws of Wikipedia, because the laws are the only thing holding in place the ideals of Wikipedia -- an encyclopedic collection of all human knowledge.

The Low Road
Wikipedia becomes an autocracy, and eventually, one of the people hurt by the autocracy will strike back, likely in a smear campaign(see Swift Vets and POWs for Truth), or in something even bigger. Remember, we've blocked all of the IPs of Congress before, and we are quickly becoming the top source of information on the internet, and we become discredited as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge that fits a certain point of view that benefits the Wikimedia Foundation's public persona.

It's up to you all to choose which way we go, I hope you take the high road, but if you do take the low road, i'll still be around welcoming people(at the current rate, I will hit 2000 around mid month)until that autocracy gets rid of me(likely with no real justification under rules and guidelines), sitting back and laughing at the next crisis to come down the pike, and likely being someone those who want to discredit Wikipedia will come to. I have a clear conscience either way, i've done nothing wrong. Karmafist 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If we would all remember to avoid hysteria and take short breaks when angry, we could let things cool down instead of escalating. If I was the troll who'd created the template, I would be very pleased with myself seeing the uproar it has caused. "Slippery slope" arguments are almost always fallacious. Penguin is not edited by penguins, so why should it be desireable that Pedophilia is edited by pedophiles? That said, chill out, take breaks and help the community regain its balance and friendly atmosphere. dab () 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a strength to having a final arbiter of content and policy (that being Jimbo in this case), in that it means that at the top, instead of rules, there is common sense, and that can be used to put an end to people gaming the rules. We are fortunate to have someone who has proven to be both disinclined to get involved in every small dispute and has exercised overall good judgement when he does get involved. The system works because it is pretty open, and because we have had good people at the top (that being Arbcom, Bureaucrats, Jimbo, etc). Wikipedia has never been simply a democracy, nor has it been a pure autocracy -- it mixes elements of both. So long as one doesn't feel the need to be a purist about either, one can deal with the mess of a mixed system and find it to be pretty good at avoiding the faults of both. Jimbo has a lot tied up in Wikipedia, including time, reputation, and presumably finances. Given these things and that he's been around longer than almost anyone else here, I think we can learn to trust his judgement as to what's needed for the good of the project (even if it ruffles a few feathers in the meantime). --Improv 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also... remember who started this damn project. It's his... Jimbo is in charge, and if you don't agree with his decisions, then you have the right to fork and/or the right to leave. Plain and simple. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's status isn't revered because he founded Wikipedia; it's because he's taken a position of common sense on every issue presented to him, and thus made himself a good leader for the project. But even so, he is still human and can make mistakes, and people should be allowed to point out those mistakes. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Takeing a position of common sense is meaningless. It is takeing the right one that is important.Geni 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We're not doing maths here. There isn't always a "right" solution. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The one that causes the greatest good for the geatest number of articles for the greatest length of time.Geni 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Like grm_wnr said, this isn't maths. Your "greatest good" is not remotely well-defined, and pretending that you can proceed from that as an axiom is dangerous. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's better defined than "common sense" as it at least gives us a structure within which to frame our arguments.Geni 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with a purely legalistic approach is that users cannot decide on the rules which are the most important. Further up the page we had one admin suggest WP:IAR, WP:DICK and WP:NPOV as the trifecta, another chose WP:PI, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. I'm left feeling old-fashioned: I always thought it was WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Physchim62 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can get around this one by useing a varation of the falsificationist position.Geni 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:TRI has been around since last April and it's always been WP:IAR, WP:DICK and WP:NPOV. --Wgfinley 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So you think if someone is boylover they are monster of some kind boy you people got lot learn than. There different between boylover or girllover and child molester. The differents is boylover or girllover will never hurt a child in any way! Child molester will hurt a child there only after one thing and they are very sick people!!

What is Desysopping & Wheel-Warring?[edit]

In an effort to learn all I can about "revert warring" and all kinds of warring on Wikipedia to avoid it totally - what is Desysopping, and Wheel-Warring, may I ask?Theo 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

De-sysopping is removing admin ("sysop") status from someone. Wheel warring is warring with abuse of admin powers (blocks, etc.).
(Shouldn't this be at the bottom?) --AySz88^-^ 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinktulip and User:Fplay[edit]

A quick glance at the userpages indicates this is the same person. Looking at contrib's, Fplay appears to be a bot (I'm no expert on identifying one). This may well be an interested person who didn't know what a sockpuppet is (or the extent to which they're frowned upon) and decided to set up a couple of accounts and I wouldn't normally care... But...

Pinktulip ("the person" I've dealt with) is extremely troublesome. Not trolling (insofar as disruption doesn't appear to be the main goal) but a really bad pattern of talk posts. I've noticed (on Terri Schiavo, God help us):

  • "Why do not just cry "rape" while you are at it? (sic)" amongst other things: [8]
  • Rambling attack idiocy in general (don't know how else to describe it): [9]

So, click on his talk contributions (as I did having been put off on one talk page). It's a pile of conceited, assume-bad-faith crap. I don't know what to do with this editor. I'm hoping a truly disinterested third-party might offer to mentor. He obviously wants to edit articles but he appears absolutely unable to do so while dealing with others constructively. Cheers, Marskell 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Marskell. Pinktulip does some good writing, but can come across as hostile and belligerent on talk pages, to the point of causing disruption.[10] I am not aware that he has misused his multiple accounts to violate policy. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Whilst not wanting to disagree too much with Marskell, who I firmly believe is some kind of superhero (he nommed me for RFA after all), I feel the need to poke my nose in. Whilst Pinktulip can be obstreporous, rambling, and too quick to refer to his own work elsewhere (back to the Terri Schiavo talk page again), his intentions are good, he doesn't edit war, and he is willing to participate in attempts to find compromise. Probably his main offense is using rather colorful and (occasionally) misjudged similies, synonyms and metaphors to try and make his point. I think this is more a case of the guy need to have his sharp edges rubbed off, rather than telling him he doesn't fit in the community and singling him out. I always think formal mentoring is a backwards step, and suggests that the person is either incompetent, or incapable of applying good judgement. This is sometimes the case, but is usually only a suitable solution following some kind of request for mediation/arbitration. I don't think mentorship would be the best route to go down; being civil and polite with Pinktulip has worked for me so far, and he's done nothing but respond in the same manner - if his views on what an article should be differ greatly from yours, then that's what a talk page is for. He's obviously more than willing to use them. I don't know anything about the User:Fplay thing though. A quick look suggests that Marskell is right about the user being a sock of Pinktulip. Perhaps someone wiser and, um, sager could confirm this and have a quiet word with Pinktulip on his talk page about sockpuppets? Proto||type 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Emact (talk · contribs) is Fplay (talk · contribs), and I'm reasonably certain they are Pinktulip (talk · contribs) as well. There was a bit of a dust-up about a month ago with Zoe blocking Fplay for running an unauthorized bot, and Emact came to ANI to "defend" the Fplay. I don't have time to dig up diffs ATM, but I will later. This is not a comment on the behavior of any of these usernames; using a sockpuppet to defend the block of another account is clearly bad form, but I have nothing to say ATM about any other disputed behavior. android79 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An old note on User:Emact indicates that User:Fplay is an alternate account: [11]. android79 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Even more interesting, "Emact" appears to be an abbreviation of Elizabeth Morgan Act, as indicated here: [12], which seems to be a favorite subject of banned Amorrow (talk · contribs). Emact has made several edits to User:Amorrow. android79 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Emact has a severe case of misogyny, as well, although he only refers to women as "a certain demographic". User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I KNEW I could count on dear, sweet Zoe to never forget a slight. You go girl!

I have never denied that Amorrow=Fplay=Emact=Pinktulip=A_bunch_of_anonymous_work . However, I have mostly tried to avoid the cesspool of the Wikipeia "talk" pages which always degenerate into popularity contests. I am SO sorry for chosing to work on Articles that are "difficult" and usualy deal with real events and living people and current Law and getting the fact straight and getting the details. I am sure that you would prefer that I work on something REALLY important, like the exact and correct categorization of musical garage bands or something relaly important like that.

User:Marskell's exact words when he detected that I had added some new articles to the "Terri Schiavo" category were:

  • I'll be expunging most of these. Marskell 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on that, who really thinks that he has the Judgement and Charater to undo my work (which is what he is doing right now) in a fair and balance manner? Would you like him to work on what YOU have created? Any of you?

Terri Shiavo is a big story about laws and people with power. If you have bothered to look at the infomation in Category:Terri Schiavo you will see that relationship are not so trivial as parent-child. While a big powerful politician does a little thing about Terri Schiavo, it matters. OK, Triple H merely got converage on national television about his parodies of TS. I can conceed that one, despite the fact that he went on and on about it and millions and millions of people saw him do it. But does it really ruin the rest of the information browsing value by just throwing him in anyway. I did include Dubya or Jeb becuase they are in too many categories already. But oooh... Marskell really, really does not LIKE Triple H now, does he? Oooh.. he trivializes Terri and makes fun of her. Now tell me: does having Triple H in there, despite the fact that he is an entertainment imbecile, really destroy all of the rest of the information that category? I am not going to fight to keep Triple H in the category because he does not matter much. He is much more like a canary in mine: If he is not notable by going on national TV, who else is not notable? Powerful politicians? Huh?

What is the percentage? How deeply does somebody have to be involved in TS before it sticks them? I am not going to fight with "Terri's defenders" to trying and shove all of the power players (and there are dozens of them) into her page or a subpage. I say: if the powerful politician was stupid enough to open his mouth even a little bit about Terri, he gets to join the club. Take a look at Bill Frist. Board-certified physician. Does he know enough not to try and publicly diagnose Terri Schiavo, effectively invoking his valid medical license, based on a video provided by her parents? He does not. That is worth remembering. It is not trivial. Do you want a man of so little judgement to be operating on YOU? Should a man of so little judgement remain Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate. We cannot answer these questions here, but we can do our best to provide the information and make it easy to find. But Marskell, choising to live a coutnry that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up. He likes it that way it was a few days ago. All hidden away. All that mess and fuss out of the way so that he can defend his precious Terri and keep her pre-1990 pretty, slender young face as the ONLY face you will have to think about. Now, run along children, and do not think about anything but that very pretty (and entirely irrelevant, except for its propaganda value) face.

I see. This is now more than 10 items up from the end of the current noticeboard. You have all "moved on", so to speak because you have all already had your turn in the character-assassination shooting gallery that went on behind my back. None of you even tried to suggest that this was happening to me. How thoughtful and communicative of you all. -- Pinktulip 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks above. Nothing in the subsequent discussion has changed my mind, your own comments least of all. I do wonder if "Marskell, choosing to live a country that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up" is a sufficiently nasty personnal attack that blocking is required. Since we've had editing disagreements of our own recently, I'm not going to be the judge of that. Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. This person, under whatever User name he edits, has long outlived his usefulness. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Another IP, for them what are keeping track and all: [[User|68.122.117.175}} posted this on my talk page. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo[edit]

After all the bitterness, wheel warring and wikistress caused by the User:paedophile template in the last few days, it has been recreated, this time by Dschor. Considering the story that has gone with said template and it tremendous side effects, I personally consider it an enormous error to recreate it; not only for its highly questionable contents, but also because of the atrocious timing. It may be a WP:POINT at best, if not a delliberate disruption. Phædriel tell me - 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the template and blocking Dschor. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Throw in a CheckUser too, if you can. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't have checkuser, sorry. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not exactly the same. Likely a WP:POINT vio though. Trurly annoying now. Looks like more desysopping might come.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he is not an admin...good.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If he was an admin that'd be a baaaad sign. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just about had it. Dschor (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has come close to trolling before, e.g. when he created list of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole. Today, he also re-created Template:User ego, which I had previously speedied as an attack page. While the new version is no longer an attack, he's on some WP:POINT mission. I'll support a block. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Update: Got User:Dschor confused with User:D-Day. The characterization of User:Dschor acting in violation of WP:POINT still stands. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, by definition, the old one was not an attack. It was however used to troll and was to devisive and its connotations were not well recieved. I am against any such boxes. I support a longer block.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to go too far off topic here, but did you see what the "deluded egomaniac" link pointed to in the version I speedied? If that's not an attack, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I second the move for a longer block. This is Dschor (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s fifth block in total. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I blocked for three hours because I didn't know whether he had a history of this sort of disruption. Feel free to extend if you think it's warranted. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(5 ecs)I've previously blocked Dschor for trolling on a simmilar issue and for personal attacks- and this is the final straw. I'd support a lot longer. Oh, and for the record he is not an admin, and the day he is - I leave. --Doc ask? 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I extended the block. Maybe he will get it this time. Maybe...Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If he doesn't and continues with whatever it is he's doing, I'll call for a ban. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
He also previously created {{user oppose Kelly Martin}} after previously being blocked for creating attack templates (I blocked him for that). — Knowledge Seeker 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A block of a longer duration is not unreasonable, under the present circumstances, and with his block history. He was aware of what happened, and appears to have intentionally created the template to make his point. He also placed it on his userpage after creating it. Should be added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. ENCEPHALON 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I correctly interpreted the missing subject of "should be added". I just posted a request on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Please correct if my interpretation of your proposal is wrong. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Per a request, I have added Dschor to the arbitratino case. Raul654 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess this means that he should now be temporarily unblocked, so that he can tell his side of the story. It would be best if the last admin to block him undid that block, so as to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to all still be quivering on our boots...:). Unblocking...(sigh). It would be nice if someone could keep the attack templates of his page.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is unwise, this guy has been angling to be a 'martyr for free speech' for weeks. Arbcomming him, he will just love. I'd have blocked him for a week and ignored him. --Doc ask? 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...I kind of agree...but it is in arbcom's hands now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I see everyone is having a good time in my honor. Good to see you again, Doc. I understand that there is some concern that I created this template in an effort to make a point. This appears to be a failure to assume good faith. The template was created for my personal use, and was not added to any other pages. I did not recreate a deleted template, and intentionally crafted the template to not be offensive or disruptive. Unfortunately, I have been drawn into a tar pit here, and it seems unlikely that a fair hearing is possible given the prejudice voiced above. I have been blocked before, but I consider myself to have been unfairly targeted due to my unpopular opinions and outspoken nature. I have to say, I am beginning to think that Doc is on a personal crusade against me, based on his comments above, and his previous interactions with me. I hope that this is not the case. --Dschor 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Dschor, being the user who gave notice of the creation of the template in question by you after seeing it at RC, and without any previous contact with you prior to this very message, I must tell you that your assertion of being targeted for your previous activities is completely out of the question, at least when it comes to my public denounce. As I try my best to AGF on your part, your comments immediately previous to the creation of the Template:User pedo give me pause in said assumption. Yet, not my personal opinion, or anyone else's here matter anyway, as the whole issue is now in the hands of the ArbCom. I sincerely wish you good luck explaining your case there, and I'm confident that, if you indeed created it in GF, the ArbCom will be happy to clear your name. Regards, Phædriel tell me - 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly hope that you are correct, but the vote appears to be going badly. I will AGF, and expect the ArbComm to find in my favor - but there is a strong chance I will be blocked. It would have been much more WP:CIVIL to try some other form of dispute resolution before submitting directly to ArbComm. I am reasonable. --Dschor 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti[edit]

His arbitration case concluded today. He was placed on both probation and general probation. Here is the final decision. I'm posting this here because he's been rather active on nuclear power lately and we need as many admins as possible watch his actions on that page...similar with Price-Anderson Act. I'm involved so I can't block or ban him myself. So any help in monitoring his edits on those 2 articles especially would be appreciated. He has also hit Hubbert_peak_theory hard in the past. Thanks for everyone's help. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what is the difference between "Probation" and "General probation"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't they the same thing? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Probation allows blocking Gatti from editing any article or talk page. General probation, with three administrators' support, allows blocking Gatti from anything they want to, up to a general ban of up to one year. Ral315 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep and the terms are different. Probation is year to year in case Ben improves. General is indefinite. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedophile project[edit]

I have restored this template. It is not stating that someone is a pedophile, it is stating they are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. I don't see the problem with this. Incidently, you should also all note that I see no discussion of the deletion, it appears to have been made on #wikipedia-en-admins. I may not have given Doc_Glasgow much time to do this, however. Anyway, take this through AfD. It's not an attack template. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And what, pray tell does the Pedophile project hope to accomplish? Is this percieved as a benefit or detriment to the Wikipedia project? Seems inflamatory on the face of it, and perhaps a WP:Point violation, just like all the other paedo-centric user boxes. Hamster Sandwich 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Good question. How about when we decide that then we remove the userbox? Seems that we have everything arse-about. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. It seems that this project has only been started in reply to the recent hullabaloo. NSLE (T+C) 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That appears to be the case, but arguably there is a place for articles related to pedophilia on this project. enochlau (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was started in late January as User:Herostratus/Pedophilia (edit | [[Talk:User:Herostratus/Pedophilia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It may not be an attack template but it is blatant trolling and 'divisive and inflammetory'. It was created by User:Dschor (23:39, 7 February 2006 Dschor) and was unused. It was listed on TfD, but givn that Dschor (currently under arbcom interdict) has done nothing but troll on this issue, and given all that happened yesterday, I followed Jimbo's lead in deleting this. I am very disapointed that Ta-bu-shi-du-ya immediately undeleted this (we were bothon IRC, and he undeleted before discussion was concluded), but I will not wheel war with him. I leave it for others to decided whether we need to go through the sham of process or common sense will prevail. --Doc ask? 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And this is why admin only IRC is a bad idea. How about discussing this a TFD with everyone else? 7 Days is not that long to wait.Geni 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
An IRC-only discussion empowers those on IRC at that particular time, and disempowers everyone else. If you make up policy by yourselves with no input from anyone else I don't think you can expect other people to follow it. Secretlondon 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This has little to do with IRC, the question is do we speedy trolling and disruption, violating WP:POINT and WP:DICK or do we use the process of TfD? --Doc ask? 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Which I was only made aware of when I went into the IRC channel. Had I not been able to go in, at exactly this time (like the vast majority of editors who are NOT admins) then I never would have known. I was originally told that the IRC channel was for "sensitive" issues that needed to remain confidential. Explain to me again how this was such a sensitive issue that the admin decision was made behind closed doors? Perhaps now people see my concern over the IRC channel? It's not being used to discuss sensitive issues such as defamation. It's being used to decide on ordinary admin decisions. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that what the new CSD T1 is for? ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain how giveing admins even more subjective powers is logical when we have just had one of our more major wheel wars? I mean "clearly divisive" logicaly that would cover every userbox (bable boxes devide between those who can speak something other than english and those who can't). Is there a reason why these need to be speedied rather than being left to TFD to sort out? Can't TFD handle the load or something?Geni 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's quite sensible, actually: wide powers to delete divisive userboxes + absolute ban on wheel-warring = a significant decrease in the number of divisive userboxes (note that this is true regardless of what definition of divisive is used, since undeletion is verboten) ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The bit where large numbers of people get blocked for template recreation is not an acceptable side effect.Geni 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Something to consider: the most controversial userboxes seem to be created by users with no intention of adding them to their own userpages (note that this one, for instance, isn't used by any users). —Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's subst-ed in User:Herostratus. — TheKMantalk 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough (although, if it's subst'ed, there's no real reason for its continued existence). —Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying it was discussed on IRC counts for nothing, discussions are to be done on the wiki as per the meta IRC page. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
From Proposed decision#Dschor: "Dschor's recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish..." I wish the latest re-creator would reconsider and delete this. Tom Harrison Talk 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the same person as before, incidentally. —Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh now just let this quitely flow through TDF and away end of problem with the minium level of effort and shouting.Geni 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And the Pedophilia WikiProject is now on MFD... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't even believe that there is 4 members in the Pedophilia WikiProject. It might be a little extreme but maybe a 24 hour block should be made to people joining the project for WP:POINT violation. — Moe ε 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ignore them and they will go away.Geni 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, on second review on who was actually in the project, there was an admin. Not sure if we want to block any of them. Just going to assume good faith. — Moe ε 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably not necessary, given this; most of them seem to have joined prior to this whole mess. —Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Dschor (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely. He was only unblocked so he could participate in his arbitration. He can do that on his user talk page. Fred Bauder 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are not quite enough votes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#Dschor_banned_from_editing_outside_RfAr to support this yet. But we all need a rest. Fred Bauder 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell do these moral panics come from? The media where you are - or do we need to close down the IRC channel to stop you whipping yourselves up? In no sense is any of this to the benefit of the project - been targetting paediatricians yet? Secretlondon 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but could you rephrase that? I can't work out what you are trying to say. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Moral panics over paedophiles. There was an actual case in the UK of a bunch of yobs targeting a paediatrician thinking that was the same as a paedophile - David Gerard 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This particular moral panic came from the very top. --Aaron 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was on the channel at the time (Sunday evening UTC). It wasn't a policy decision made on IRC - it was a pile of us discussing the {user pedophile} template and finding others to sanity-check our initial "wtf. DIE." reactions to it. (IRC is very good for really quick sanity-checks.) I should note that IRC was very good for calming the forest fire as it occurred - specifically The Land running around various talk pages and IRC trying to calm people down. I was unspeakably pissed off by the whole incident and he did a great job calming me down too ;-)

Anyway, using IRC for sanity-checking is IMO quite different from 'making up policy on IRC'. Of course, waiting would be more ideal. Mind you, I still don't see why a blatant trolling disruption template like that wouldn't warrant speedy deletion on sight and why anyone would think keeping it on TFD for seven days was actually a better idea. c.f. CSD versus AFD - David Gerard 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm trying to work out where the hysteria comes from. It seems to appear at random and escalate.