QUOTE
Failure of ArbCom to block pro-paedophila advocate when notified
Sue, before I get into the rather serious subject of my message, let me first wish you a happy new year and congratulate you on another very successful fund raising campaign.
Some people believe that the internet is full of paedophiles looking to pounce upon unsuspecting children. I am not one of those people. It is unlikely that Wikipedia would be a very fruitful place for those looking to contact children, yet common sense suggests that we should ensure that Wikipedia is not used for pro-paedophilia advocacy. Experience has shown us that it has been done before and remains a temptation to those who wish to push their ideology, although this is hardly exclusive to paedophilia.
I was disappointed to learn that ArbCom members did not act when notified of an editor engaging in pro-paedophilia advocacy on English Wikipedia. This editor is quite easily identified off-wiki, where they have openly stated that they are a member of NAMBLA, among other things.
My understanding of the situation is that individual ArbCom members were notified of the situation but either outright refused to act or failed to respond at all. Several weeks later, a message was sent to the general ArbCom email, as advised by WP:CHILDPROTECT. The editor in question was blocked a day or so later on English Wikipedia, but remains unblocked on the other WMF projects to which they have contributed. I think it would be an obvious and sensible policy to globally lock the accounts of anyone blocked for these types of activities, don't you?
I would like to make two suggestions to improve our handling of similar situations in the future. First, any ArbCom member who receives notification of pro-paedophilia advocacy should forward it to the larger ArbCom group for review (if they choose not to act on it themselves). Second, ArbCom members who place such blocks should request that the accounts be globally locked as a standard part of the process.
You have made public statements which support the principles underlying the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy on English Wikipedia, so I hope you understand that the purpose of this message is not to shame individual ArbCom members but to suggest that we need to find ways to deal with similar situations more effectively.
Regards, Delicious carbuncle
(mailed and posted) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sue, before I get into the rather serious subject of my message, let me first wish you a happy new year and congratulate you on another very successful fund raising campaign.
Some people believe that the internet is full of paedophiles looking to pounce upon unsuspecting children. I am not one of those people. It is unlikely that Wikipedia would be a very fruitful place for those looking to contact children, yet common sense suggests that we should ensure that Wikipedia is not used for pro-paedophilia advocacy. Experience has shown us that it has been done before and remains a temptation to those who wish to push their ideology, although this is hardly exclusive to paedophilia.
I was disappointed to learn that ArbCom members did not act when notified of an editor engaging in pro-paedophilia advocacy on English Wikipedia. This editor is quite easily identified off-wiki, where they have openly stated that they are a member of NAMBLA, among other things.
My understanding of the situation is that individual ArbCom members were notified of the situation but either outright refused to act or failed to respond at all. Several weeks later, a message was sent to the general ArbCom email, as advised by WP:CHILDPROTECT. The editor in question was blocked a day or so later on English Wikipedia, but remains unblocked on the other WMF projects to which they have contributed. I think it would be an obvious and sensible policy to globally lock the accounts of anyone blocked for these types of activities, don't you?
I would like to make two suggestions to improve our handling of similar situations in the future. First, any ArbCom member who receives notification of pro-paedophilia advocacy should forward it to the larger ArbCom group for review (if they choose not to act on it themselves). Second, ArbCom members who place such blocks should request that the accounts be globally locked as a standard part of the process.
You have made public statements which support the principles underlying the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy on English Wikipedia, so I hope you understand that the purpose of this message is not to shame individual ArbCom members but to suggest that we need to find ways to deal with similar situations more effectively.
Regards, Delicious carbuncle
(mailed and posted) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sue, I see that you have made a couple of edits here since I posted my message, but I'm not sure if you were back from the holidays in your official capacity. This probably isn't anywhere near the top of your list of things to do, but I think you will understand that it is distressing to know that someone has been identified as pushing a pro-paedophilia agenda but ArbCom members are refusing to deal with the issue. I am afraid that if people feel that the official process does not work, or that ArbCom members are selectively enforcing it, then people will turn to disruptive on-wiki and off-wiki accusations, which can only harm the project. I think the suggestions I have made for improving the process are very straightforward and can be implemented immediately, so this shouldn't take very long for you to cross off your to-do list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I will be unable to attend "office hours" with Sue Gardner (now happening Thursday, January 28th, 18:00-19:00 UTC) - if anyone does, would you please politely ask Sue about this issue? It seems like a really easy thing to solve.
