User:Buddy431/pedophilia draft
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page describes the current and past practices toward self-identified pedophiles and those advocating pedophilia.
While there is no policy on the English Wikipedia addressing pedophiles specifically, in practice suspected pedophiles and pedophilia advocates have been indefinitely blocked and referred to the Arbitration Committee.
These include:
- Self identified pedophiles. The 2006 Wheel war and resulting Arbcom decision was a result of a userbox identifying the user as a pedophile.
- Suspected Pedophiles: If a user was suspected of being a pedophile for any other reason, they have also been blocked. In at least one case, a user was blocked due to actions elsewhere on the internet (off-wiki) that led people to believe that he was a pedophile.
- Pedophilia advocates. Users who appear to be advocating for pedophilia have also been blocked.
Reports of such activity are generally sent by e-mail to Arbcom.
Not everyone on the English Wikipedia agrees with how these cases are handled. At the April 2010 ANI thread, there was some discussion about making a document detailing these practices. This is that document. As the talk page attests to, there are some severe differences in opinion about the best way to deal with these situations. Those in favor of the current practice (or similar) generally cite:
- Protecting children on Wikipedia
- Protecting Wikipedia’s reputation
- Protecting the reputation of the accused by conducting the investigations off the public record.
Others do not agree with the current policy, and may
- Object to the closed nature of the current process
- Object to preemptively blocking people who have not violated other policies
- Believe that blocking admitted pedophiles will lead more pedophiles to edit without declaring their nature
As this is an extremely emotional issue, the discussion has at times gotten heated. Editors are urged to keep a cool head, and discuss this in a polite and rational manner.
To receive more input on the current practice, as well as what the future practice should be, a Request for comment has been opened up at (placeholder).
See also
[edit]- Previous discussions
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Pedophilia_advocacy_on_Lolicon: a recent case at ANI that resulted in a block.
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive29#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles: A 2006 discussion at ANI that led to a wheel war. More information below.
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war: an arbitration case from 2006 about a wheel war over a “This user identifies as a pedophile” userbox
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_paedophile: the deletion discussion for a “This user identifies as a pedophile” userbox
- Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship/Archive_1#User:VigilancePrime: a 2008 case where an editor was blocked for a userbox stating that “This user loves girls as opposed to boys”
- Blocking and banning users
- ArbCom policy