Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Wikipediocracy blog posts
User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:24 pm

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Triptych
Retired
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:35 am
Wikipedia User: it's alliterative

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Triptych » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm

Hersch wrote:Discuss.
Nice work, and really what is becoming the journalistic tradition of this website. Shine a light on it. There was enough there to reasonably draw the attention of "Keith." ArbCom may not be depended on to handle child protection, its members enjoy masquerading as jurists on its secretive mailing list. More pretending and fun time for them. Where is Wikipedia's parent charity the Wikimedia Foundation? Busy maintaining the "no liability" wall between it and Wikipedia.

What is the training of ArbCom to handle child protection? Zilch, nothing, zero. Yet the Wikipedia policy demands that such concerns be forwarded only to its secret mailing list?! They are widely known not to respond unless they feel like it. The elusive arbitrator Timotheus Canens has publicly opined, paraphrase from clear recollection, "just because we don't respond doesn't mean we didn't read your comment, it just means we found it unconvincing."

Arbitrator Wormthatturned took a particular interest in banning Keith. He purported to "recuse," then donned his prosecutor hat against Keith, combing his entire edit history to trump up a list of mostly minor civility infractions. This was then trumpeted by Timotheus Canens as a rationale for his vote to ban Keith. AGK piled on, phoning it in from his WMF charity-paid junket to Hong Kong. Risker also on that Wikimania gravy train. Who else? Well, WMF's Oliver Keyes was, the opposing party in Keith's banning case. Not rocking the boat? How about some public disclosure? Which arbitrators have received funds, gifts, or "scholarships" to exotic locales?

Keep shining a light on it.

Edited for typos only.
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:46 pm

*sigh* It would be nice if the blog post made at least an attempt at providing an honest description of the situation.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:58 pm

This just in...
Minors on Wikimedia projects

This just a heads up that I have asked questions of Geoff Brigham at Meta:Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Minors_on_Wikimedia_projects in relation to minors on our projects. Firstly, I am wanting clarification from WMF on whether they will be required to be en:COPPA compliant. After this issue is sorted, I will then be seeking clarification on the ability of minors to licence their works, and indeed on being able to participate in our projects. russavia (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Wer900 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:02 pm

What a pretentious fuck. Having resigned from bureaucratship, Scott Bibby takes it upon himself to dabble in power playing once more, at the expense of children.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
neved
Gregarious
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by neved » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:20 am

I think this blog would have been stronger, if the real user names and the actual links were provided.
"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." Golda Meir

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Wer900 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:57 am

neved wrote:I think this blog would have been stronger, if the real user names and the actual links were provided.
support
Obvious civility robots are obvious

Volunteer Marek
Habitué
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Volunteer Marek » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:58 am

This. This is what the blogs should be like. Good job.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:08 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:*sigh* It would be nice if the blog post made at least an attempt at providing an honest description of the situation.
Yes, we should compare it against any of the excellent blog posts you have provided, TDA, and then we'd see what for and who's it, then, wouldn't we? Tut, tut!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:45 am

thekohser wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:*sigh* It would be nice if the blog post made at least an attempt at providing an honest description of the situation.
Yes, we should compare it against any of the excellent blog posts you have provided, TDA, and then we'd see what for and who's it, then, wouldn't we? Tut, tut!
The blog entry hardly touches on why ArbCom banned Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The blog doesn't discuss Kiefer.Wolfowitz's flaw, and how those flaws had him banned. Saying that Kiefer.Wolfowitz "was punished by the encyclopedia’s powerful Arbitration Committee, for raising complaints of a serious nature about child protection and predatory editors" isn't really honest.

The blog entry contains the same flaws that greybeard claimed that Peter Damian's planned book possesses. Peter Damian sees what he wants to see and writes what he wants others to see. Kiefer.Wolfowitz isn't the great, big, virtuous champion of good that the blog entry makes him out to be. Please stop trying to use the blog to turn forum members into heroes.

User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Tarc » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:45 am

I tend to (at best) skim any blog entry written by Damian or Barbour, honestly. If the Wikipediocracy was the National League, they'd be the pitchers slotted 9th in the batting order. If they manage to drop a bunt, it's a good day.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:35 am

Raised on Jimbo's page (not by me). All sorts of weird stuff.
Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
Putting homophobia aside boy-scouts are entirely different kettle of fish than wikipedia editors. Boy-scouts have direct physical contact with their adult supervisors, the adults are often in position of authority to the children, etc. Underaged wikipedians are forbidden to identify themselves as such, their physical whereabouts are hidden, all on-wiki activities are constantly monitored and opened for scrutiny. The different risks dictates diffeent level of precautions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Several of the child protection policies I looked at were emphatic that the principles applying online are the same as those applying offline. As for the physical whereabouts being hidden, that’s the point of the rule (which Wikipedia does not have) about not contacting offline.
Last edited by Peter Damian on Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:38 am

Peter Damian wrote:Raised on Jimbo's page (not by me). All sorts of weird stuff.
Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
It seems like a cat 5 hurricane of crazy has swamped the good ship wikipedia these days.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:45 am

Well, thanks for at least admitting you are Peter, Mr. Anon. That being said, given your history, you'll have to forgive me if I put zero stock in your good word. If you have actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, take it to the police. Otherwise, I have found that "Won't someone please think of the children?" is often a phrase used to try and mask ulterior motives. Resolute 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Glad someone brought that up.

The IP is not me, Mr Resolute. And who are you?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:13 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
thekohser wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:*sigh* It would be nice if the blog post made at least an attempt at providing an honest description of the situation.
Yes, we should compare it against any of the excellent blog posts you have provided, TDA, and then we'd see what for and who's it, then, wouldn't we? Tut, tut!
The blog entry hardly touches on why ArbCom banned Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The blog doesn't discuss Kiefer.Wolfowitz's flaw, and how those flaws had him banned. Saying that Kiefer.Wolfowitz "was punished by the encyclopedia’s powerful Arbitration Committee, for raising complaints of a serious nature about child protection and predatory editors" isn't really honest.

The blog entry contains the same flaws that greybeard claimed that Peter Damian's planned book possesses. Peter Damian sees what he wants to see and writes what he wants others to see. Kiefer.Wolfowitz isn't the great, big, virtuous champion of good that the blog entry makes him out to be. Please stop trying to use the blog to turn forum members into heroes.
Agreed that this was really spun hard. KW, like all of us, has his foibles. Overstating the evidence and making borderline libelous intimations was the cause of the axe. Of course, playing by ArbCom's rules (keep it secret and no, we'll never even acknowledge receipt of your communication, let alone do anything with it) is really unacceptable also.

Still, this wasn't a battle between Good and Evil. It was a boisterous roll around the pigpen in lieu of a typical lynching and everybody involved got covered with muck and shit.

RfB

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by lilburne » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:34 am

According to Jimmy:
It is the whore messenger wot is to blame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =570365233
Last edited by lilburne on Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:58 am

Vigilant wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:Raised on Jimbo's page (not by me). All sorts of weird stuff.
Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
It seems like a cat 5 hurricane of crazy has swamped the good ship wikipedia these days.
The point is that Wikipedia fails to prohibit private contacts, physical or electronic, between adults and children, unlike the BoyScouts or GirlScouts.

Wikipedia adults are prohibited from soliciting contact-information from children.

Nonetheless, Demiurge1000 and other adults have been using private contact-information from children, even those with Asperger's syndrome or other problems that make them especially vulnerable (even if 16 years old or older), to suggest that
(1) he shall be visiting the town of the child the next week,
(2) another child can continue emailing him even after his parents have erased his list of contacts (and then continue to email and IM the child for months),
etc.
These actions would not be tolerated in any organization serious about child protection.

Jimbo Wales's claim that Child Protection is strictly enforced is a bold-faced lie. ArbCom's Worm That Turned (T-C-L) already wrote to WMF director Sue Gardner that ArbCom was overwhelmed investigating 20 cases of (apparent) child predators yearly, and unable to fulfill its obligations, because of lack of time and training. Sue Gardner has still failed to reply with any help from WMF.

Of the 20 cases a year of child predators, how many are known to have acted as Demiurge1000, who
  • -has inspired one child to write "This user is gay" and a second child to write "This user enjoys caning boys" on his userpage,
    -writes mostly on caning (T-H-L) and corporal punishment (T-H-L),
    -become penpals with another spanking-obsessed editor (Alarics (T-C-L)) via private emails,
    -sent hundreds of personal greetings to child users,
    -hung out at venues favored by children, e.g. IRC, Teahouse, articles about children's novels, etc.
besides the private contacts noted above?
Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz on Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Triptych
Retired
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:35 am
Wikipedia User: it's alliterative

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Triptych » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:38 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Agreed that this was really spun hard.
If "Keith" was criticizing the Wikipedia child protection system/non-system, and that was a major factor in his banning, then the article was not "spin" in my view. That's exactly what he was doing. He was always talking about standards and Wikipedia should apply Boy Scouts or similar policy, and that he only ever got a perfunctory single email back from ArbCom and so forth. What some people in this thread are faulting really is that the article does not tell the complete story, but that does not mean "spin," and it doesn't mean it was other than honest like TDA said.

The front page article author Peter Damian is no doubt well aware of the other side of Keith's banning case, but it would muddle the article if he tried to merge it in there, unless he made it magazine article length. Like Keith I think he recognized Wikipedia's child protection system as defective, the situation as urgent, and took the license to write a short article with punch. I would imagine he's equally prepared to write the other side of the banning case, which is also rather shocking and indicative of corruption: the opposing party, a WMF employee infamous for "joshing" in official Wikipedia administrators' IRC on combative treatment of sex dolls modeled on editors he dislikes, seductive massages with oil followed by immolation, and hole-punching a woman's throat with a pen to watch her die slowly, walked away an editor in good standing despite having been the instigator of Keith in the episode that immediately precipitated the case.

I disagree with Jimbo Wales (at his talkpage last night) comment that "there is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior..." Indeed, there is truth that a whistle blower was silenced, though there may be more to it. For those in Wikipedia power structure wounded by the fact that Damian told only one side of the story about Keith's banning, they may find themselves in critical condition should he tell the other side.
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:59 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Jimbo Wales's claim that Child Protection is strictly enforced is a bold-faced lie. ArbCom's Worm That Turned (T-C-L) already wrote to WMF director Sue Gardner (T-C-L) that ArbCom was overwhelmed investigating 20 cases of (apparent) child predators yearly, and unable to fulfill its obligations, because of lack of time and training. Sue Gardner has still failed to reply with any help from WMF.
I wrote the following on my talk page:
Child protection: Wikipediocracy and Jimbo Wales

Wikipediocracy today posted a blog on my being blocked after I had raised concerns about child protection (already linked from the talk page of Jimbo Wales (T-C-L);permalink).

In a discussion on his user page, Jimbo Wales stated the falsehood that WP:Child protection (T-H-L) is strictly enforced, which is easily refuted.

Arbcom lacks the time and training to handle the 20+ cases yearly of child predators, according to arbitrator Worm That Turned (T-C-L), who appealed to WMF Director Sue Gardner (T-C-L) for help. She has failed to provide any concrete help to ArbCom, although Sue Gardner did appoint a committee with long-time arbitrators Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) and Risker (T-C-L) to liaise with WMF:Legal.

Is appointing a committee Jimbo Wales's ideal of "strict enforcement" of WP:Child protection?

Sincerely,
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+2)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:16 am

Jimbo comments:
I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced. The blog post I'm asked about is utterly dishonest it its portrayal of the facts. There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. His long block log tells the story better than I can. He should have been permanently banned a very long time ago for disruption. To suddenly cast him as a hero in the service of children is beyond mistaken.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking these points in turn

1. “our child protection policy, … is strictly enforced” Someone has already commented (see above) that it is not strictly enforced. The blog post took no view on that.

2. The post did claim that the Wikipedia child protection was inadequate. Specifically, (i) there are no requirements on identifying those who work with children. Quite the reverse: WP values protecting anonymity at all costs, to the extent of banning those who threaten it by raising concerns in good faith. (ii) Wikipedia (unlike Wikia, even) has no lower age limit. The case discussed was of an 11 year old boy who was allowed on Wikipedia even though prevented from opening an account on Wikia. (iii) While the Wikipedi achild ‘policy’ warns children from swapping contact information with others, there are no sanctions on older users who encourage them to do this. That was the point of the case study. Further, Wikipedia encourages children to edit under a policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. This encourages abuse because no one in the administration can monitor interaction with children. A more responsible policy would be for children to be required to identify to a responsible person in the Foundation, and for interaction to be carefully monitored for abuse. Plus, a lower age limit, and strictly no pre-teens.

3. “a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection”. Wholly untrue. The decision states “Despite being a prolific content creator, Kiefer.Wolfowitz also has an extensive history of making comments which are below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia, which include personal attacks, often made in an attempt to belittle other editors ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; for more examples, v. here), and carefully worded remarks which insinuate misconduct on the part of others without actually asserting it openly ([7], v.here). He has also made on-wiki allegations that other editors may have violated the policy on the protection of children”. The second part of the decision is unquestionably related to the child safety allegations. The links in the first part are also to similar allegations. The first set of links are to slightly snarky, often condescending remarks which are in no way the kind of “outrageous insulting and … bad behavior” that Jimbo implies.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:28 am

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/26/wikipedia-punishes-child-safety-whistleblower/#comment-27263:
Any excuse will do for ArbCom to get rid of vocal critics.

Let’s get real. This editor was banned because ArbCom doesn’t like critics. Simple as that.

ArbCom is a joke.
The fact that you have our readers fooled makes me sick.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Hex » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:49 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Agreed that this was really spun hard. KW, like all of us, has his foibles. Overstating the evidence and making borderline libelous intimations was the cause of the axe. Of course, playing by ArbCom's rules (keep it secret and no, we'll never even acknowledge receipt of your communication, let alone do anything with it) is really unacceptable also.

Still, this wasn't a battle between Good and Evil. It was a boisterous roll around the pigpen in lieu of a typical lynching and everybody involved got covered with muck and shit.
Good assessment. This was a heavily sanitized post.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:59 pm

Hex wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Agreed that this was really spun hard. KW, like all of us, has his foibles. Overstating the evidence and making borderline libelous intimations was the cause of the axe. Of course, playing by ArbCom's rules (keep it secret and no, we'll never even acknowledge receipt of your communication, let alone do anything with it) is really unacceptable also.

Still, this wasn't a battle between Good and Evil. It was a boisterous roll around the pigpen in lieu of a typical lynching and everybody involved got covered with muck and shit.
Good assessment. This was a heavily sanitized post.
The underlying theme of the post was that child protection policy on Wikipedia is inadequate, in several respects, and in particular because of the conflict between (i) the Wikipedia principle that editors, including adult editors working alongside children, have a right to be anonymous; and (ii) the principle adopted by any responsible organisation that anyone working alongside children should identify themselves to the organisation.
Imagine a paunchy 50-year-old stranger wandering up and eagerly joining the conversation of two 12 year olds playing outside a suburban house. One of their parents comes out: “Who are you?” “Oh, I’m Dennis101,” replies the stranger. “No, I mean your real name?” “Oh just … Dennis101. No need to bother about my other name. I love to mentor children. The boys and I are planning on hanging out unsupervised later. Is that OK?” It is unthinkable. Except that it is quite unremarkable on Wikipedia.
Let's start with that idea. Do you have a problem with that?

And to 'Randy'. Where was the spin?? Do you have a problem too?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Hersch » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:46 pm

Tarc wrote:I tend to (at best) skim any blog entry written by Damian or Barbour, honestly. If the Wikipediocracy was the National League, they'd be the pitchers slotted 9th in the batting order. If they manage to drop a bunt, it's a good day.
And Tarc, you would be the guy running naked across the field, being pursued by security, honestly.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:01 pm

First off, let's all agree that Wikipedia's so-called "child protection" policies, which amount to the mailing of a secret email to ArbCom which they never acknowledge and promptly ignore, are a bad joke and need to be changed.

Yes? Yes.
Peter Damian wrote:
Imagine a paunchy 50-year-old stranger wandering up and eagerly joining the conversation of two 12 year olds playing outside a suburban house. One of their parents comes out: “Who are you?” “Oh, I’m Dennis101,” replies the stranger. “No, I mean your real name?” “Oh just … Dennis101. No need to bother about my other name. I love to mentor children. The boys and I are planning on hanging out unsupervised later. Is that OK?” It is unthinkable. Except that it is quite unremarkable on Wikipedia.
Let's start with that idea. Do you have a problem with that?

And to 'Randy'. Where was the spin?? Do you have a problem too?
Here's the problem with the logic behind that post. It equates the physical presence of a hypothetical creepy middle-aged man with pre-pubescent children with the email contact halfway around the world of a middle-aged man with sketchy proclivities with teenaged Wikipedians.

One is a grave physical danger; the other is perhaps unseemly, certainly worthy of outside notice and further monitoring, but not a grave physical danger.

RfB

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:36 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Here's the problem with the logic behind that post. It equates the physical presence of a hypothetical creepy middle-aged man with pre-pubescent children with the email contact halfway around the world of a middle-aged man with sketchy proclivities with teenaged Wikipedians.

One is a grave physical danger; the other is perhaps unseemly, certainly worthy of outside notice and further monitoring, but not a grave physical danger.

RfB
“The policy of two-deep leadership extends into cyberspace. Another adult leader should be copied on any electronic communication between adult and youth member”. Not a Wikipedia policy, however.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:44 pm

This forum exists to criticize Wikipedia, leading to improvements in Wikipedia or to public exposure & awareness of problems of Wikipedia.

Peter Damian wrote an article, based on recent events, to highlight the alarming weakness of child-protection policies and practices on Wikipedia, which are far below those of reputable organizations like the Girl Scouts.

On Wikipedia, I similarly had tried to highlight the weakness of child-protection policies and practices on Wikipedia, while trying to balance the need to protect exposed and vulnerable boys and young men.

So our public discussions of Demiurge1000's behavior have been very circumscribed and omitted incidents involving less exposed or more vulnerable minors.

My goal was primarily to change the policy so that adults may no longer have private contacts with minors, either electronically or in reality, and to have the policy enforced.

Obviously, those goals are abhorrent to many of you, who have tried to explain why Demiurge1000's contacts with young teenagers are not a problem (although none of you have addressed his months of contacts with socially retarded children, despite parental objections) for months now.

Now you criticize the article as though you still are unable to understand its purpose. Would it not be more honest for you to link to your previous defenses of Demiurge1000's contacts with teenagers, so that readers knows your true position, that "teenagers can take care of themselves"?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:45 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:First off, let's all agree that Wikipedia's so-called "child protection" policies, which amount to the mailing of a secret email to ArbCom which they never acknowledge and promptly ignore, are a bad joke and need to be changed.

Yes? Yes.
That pretty hard to argue with.
Can we also agree that Sue Gardner has completely dropped the ball on this topic despite desperate pleas on her talk page?

She's making noises about waiting for legal, but I strongly suspect bullshit.
Peter Damian wrote:
Imagine a paunchy 50-year-old stranger wandering up and eagerly joining the conversation of two 12 year olds playing outside a suburban house. One of their parents comes out: “Who are you?” “Oh, I’m Dennis101,” replies the stranger. “No, I mean your real name?” “Oh just … Dennis101. No need to bother about my other name. I love to mentor children. The boys and I are planning on hanging out unsupervised later. Is that OK?” It is unthinkable. Except that it is quite unremarkable on Wikipedia.
Let's start with that idea. Do you have a problem with that?

And to 'Randy'. Where was the spin?? Do you have a problem too?
Here's the problem with the logic behind that post. It equates the physical presence of a hypothetical creepy middle-aged man with pre-pubescent children with the email contact halfway around the world of a middle-aged man with sketchy proclivities with teenaged Wikipedians.

One is a grave physical danger; the other is perhaps unseemly, certainly worthy of outside notice and further monitoring, but not a grave physical danger.

RfB
I cannot agree with this.
I've been online since the beginning.

This type of grooming has been going on forever.
Whether the groomer is actually planning to meet the kid is one concern.
However, allowing this to occur at all provides camouflage to those who will try to meet kids.

There is no upside to letting this continue.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Wer900 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:47 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:This forum exists to criticize Wikipedia, leading to improvements in Wikipedia or to public exposure & awareness of problems of Wikipedia.

Peter Damian wrote an article, based on recent events, to highlight the alarming weakness of child-protection policies and practices on Wikipedia, which are far below those of reputable organizations like the Girl Scouts.

On Wikipedia, I similarly had tried to highlight the weakness of child-protection policies and practices on Wikipedia, while trying to balance the need to protect exposed and vulnerable boys and young men.

So our public discussions of Demiurge1000's behavior have been very circumscribed and omitted incidents involving less exposed or more vulnerable minors.

My goal was primarily to change the policy so that adults may no longer have private contacts with minors, either electronically or in reality, and to have the policy enforced.

Obviously, those goals are abhorrent to many of you, who have tried to explain why Demiurge1000's contacts with young teenagers are not a problem (although none of you have addressed his months of contacts with socially retarded children, despite parental objections) for months now.

Now you criticize the article as though you still are unable to understand its purpose. Would it not be more honest for you to link to your previous defenses of Demiurge1000's contacts with teenagers, so that readers knows your true position, that "teenagers can take care of themselves"?
I agree completely. Do you know of a UK Wikipedian who serve as a contact point for the authorities there? It would be prudent to get an investigation started soon, before the record is scrubbed of Demiurge1000's misdeeds.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:48 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Here's the problem with the logic behind that post. It equates the physical presence of a hypothetical creepy middle-aged man with pre-pubescent children with the email contact halfway around the world of a middle-aged man with sketchy proclivities with teenaged Wikipedians.

One is a grave physical danger; the other is perhaps unseemly, certainly worthy of outside notice and further monitoring, but not a grave physical danger.

RfB
“The policy of two-deep leadership extends into cyberspace. Another adult leader should be copied on any electronic communication between adult and youth member”. Not a Wikipedia policy, however.
Wikipedia and WMF do not have the expertise or interest to develop mentoring relationships between adults and minors.

WMF and Wikipedia should insist that any mentoring be supervised by legitimate organizations that require background checks and parental approval, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:53 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Here's the problem with the logic behind that post. It equates the physical presence of a hypothetical creepy middle-aged man with pre-pubescent children with the email contact halfway around the world of a middle-aged man with sketchy proclivities with teenaged Wikipedians.

One is a grave physical danger; the other is perhaps unseemly, certainly worthy of outside notice and further monitoring, but not a grave physical danger.

RfB
“The policy of two-deep leadership extends into cyberspace. Another adult leader should be copied on any electronic communication between adult and youth member”. Not a Wikipedia policy, however.
Wikipedia and WMF do not have the expertise or interest to develop mentoring relationships between adults and minors.

WMF and Wikipedia should insist that any mentoring be supervised by legitimate organizations that require background checks and parental approval, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
I disagree.
They should hire a group of experienced professionals to develop this in house.
They're always going need this capability.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:40 pm

The IP on Jimbo's talk page mentioned a "This user enjoys caning naughty boys" edit. I hadn't followed this saga closely before, so I checked whether that was true. The edit does exist.

This is the (then 14-year-old, according to his user page and photograph) editor who made that edit in 2010. :blink:

Teenagers are teenagers (unless the 14-year-old is really another middle-aged male ...), and he may just have been winding Demiurge1000 up for some unknown reason, but it does raise an eyebrow. Remarks like that, however meant, don't come without a back story.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:55 pm

Here is the Wikipedia ‘Child Protection Policy’.

It was begun in April 2010 by MZMcBride. Obviously it was developed mindful of the pedophile campaign on Wikipedia. “It is the policy of the English Wikipedia to block any editors who self-identify as pedophiles” and the current version still reflects that: “Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely”.

It doesn’t specify what counts as ‘inappropriate’ behaviour. More comprehensive policies would include the ‘two deep’ rule, strictly not contacting minors off-wiki, and the other stuff mentioned in today’s blog post.

The only other useful thing is this:
If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikipedia is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, or worries you in any way whatsoever, please tell a responsible adult, and ask them to look at this page. Do not continue to communicate with the other person – ignore them completely. Never give out information such as your address or phone number to anyone, including people who say they are trying to help you. When in doubt about whether certain information is too personal do not give it out
.

This is for minors. There is nothing at all about how adults should interact with children on Wikipedia, e.g. nothing saying that they should not contact children off-wiki, or ask them for contact details.

Requirements for responsible adults on Wikipedia is completely and entirely missing. It’s useless.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by rhindle » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:04 pm

Well, there is "advice." But not requirements....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... or_parents

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:27 pm

HRIP7 wrote:The IP on Jimbo's talk page mentioned a "This user enjoys caning naughty boys" edit. I hadn't followed this saga closely before, so I checked whether that was true. The edit does exist.

This is the (then 14-year-old, according to his user page and photograph) editor who made that edit in 2010. :blink:

Teenagers are teenagers (unless the 14-year-old is really another middle-aged male ...), and he may just have been winding Demiurge1000 up for some unknown reason, but it does raise an eyebrow. Remarks like that, however meant, don't come without a back story.
The IP also mentioned Demiurge1000's editing of articles on caning, corporal punishment, and c. a dozen related articles. It could well have mentioned Demiurge1000's penpal relationship with Alarics (stemming from their shared interest in spankings).

It could have mentioned the IRC logs in which Demiurge1000 laughed along in a discussion of the folly of preventing children from having pictures of penises; readers may remember Demiurge1000's similar comments in an RfA of a 14-year-old boy (with Asperger's, I believe), about the folly of not letting the boy have full access to deleted image files, such as files more extreme than Wikipedia's current image of several men ejaculating on a woman. I gave links on other thread.
Demiurge1000 is anti-anti-pornography (particularly children's access to pornography), in his RfA comments in 2011 (arguing with Herostratus about a 16 year old's access to bukake images) and on IRC (lightening the mood while afficionados explained the importance of penis images for children, after commenting on relaxed child-pornography laws in Iceland).

Demiurge1000 has dropped hints when he will be visiting the hometown of at least one child on-Wiki, and as others have reminded you, and also told another child how to foil his parents' attempts to keep him from emailing strangers (and then Demiurge1000 continued emailing and IMing the child off-Wiki).

None of Demiurge1000's activities violate "Wikipedia:Child Protection", which has no prohibition on private contacts (email, IM, meetings, etc.).

N.B. I copy-edited this. KW
Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz on Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:30 pm

rhindle wrote:Well, there is "advice." But not requirements....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... or_parents
More like a list of weaknesses in the policy. No background checks, no monitoring or patrolling, no enforcement, nothing at all.
Wikipedia does not engage in a "working with children" check on editors, and it is possible for any editor to communicate with any other either on the wiki, or via email if the editor has an email account registered with Wikipedia.
… contrary to some sites directed towards youth, the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) do not regularly patrol discussion pages or remove inappropriate comments
While some child-focused online communities will remove members who are found/suspected of being dangerous towards children in the "real/offline" world, Wikipedia does not, as a rule, require users to disclose their identities, and hence cannot remove them according to anything that pertains to identity, including criminal or sex-offender records. A child, or anyone else, should never assume that if somebody has an account on Wikipedia, then they're safe to meet in person.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:34 pm

The same IP (clearly cruising for a block) has returned to Jimbo's page.
Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia; Child discipline; Corporal punishment; Corporal punishment in the home; List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Wer900 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The same IP (clearly cruising for a block) has returned to Jimbo's page.
Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia; Child discipline; Corporal punishment; Corporal punishment in the home; List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Make Jimbo uncomfortable. Mancunium, please communicate with some members of the House of Lords. They may help to put the pressure on Wikipedia, and Jimbo particularly.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:34 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:Raised on Jimbo's page (not by me). All sorts of weird stuff.
Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
It seems like a cat 5 hurricane of crazy has swamped the good ship wikipedia these days.
Let's wish that Cullen328 has not suffered a stroke. He premiered his "homophobic" rant on my talk page.
Cullen328 (T-C-L):

Wikipedia and WMF should benchmark their child-protection rules against leading organizations, like the Scouts (Boy and Girl), each of whom are not-for-profits and which declare policies to satisfy both COPA and COPPA.

Above, I have commented on specifics, which were censored from my ArbCom case.
In particular, there should be a ban on private chats in person or by email with minors. There must be a responsible adult cc'ed on any email (e.g., selected members of OTRS or oversight or ArbCom) responding to a minor disclosing personal information, and the minor must be warned not to disclose further personal information. (I would favor alerting parents, if feasible.)
Any adult who is found to be carrying on one-on-one private chats, correspondence, or meetings with minors should be banned.

Wikipedia and WMF do not aim to have their copyright and paraphrase policies only meet the legal minimum, but strive to do what is right. Why shouldn't kids be protected the same way?

Wikipedia is a bad activity for children, in that it crowds out schoolwork. Its goods are poor substitutes for schoolwork. Also, exposure to computer light disrupts sleep, especially for children.
BMK/Cullen328, I would at least require an affirmation of adulthood by editors. That is not enough, because kids will lie about their ages. I would ask the Boy/Girl Scouts or YMCA or Luther League for help.


Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)10:54 pm, 2 August 2013, Friday (25 days ago) (UTC+2)


Since the Boy Scouts have made homophobia the core of their failed "child protection" program for decades, I simply don't see them as a model.
Why should WMF base its approach on compliance with a law that never went into effect, and another law directed at commercial businesses that exempts non-profits?
Cullen328 (T-C-L) 11:56 pm, 2 August 2013, Friday (25 days ago) (UTC+2)


Perhaps you should read what I wrote?
A ban on private encounters with children and a 2-adult deep requirement has nothing to do with homophobia.
As you should know, Wikipedia welcomes adults who have a history of soliciting private encounters with children.
You also seemed to have missed my comparison of WP's child-protection weakness with its proactive rules on copyright and paraphrasing.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)11:08 am, 3 August 2013, Saturday (24 days ago) (UTC+2)
Cullen328 is often too Mr. Rogers for my taste, but he is a good guy. It's not like him to repeat himself without considering counterarguments.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:35 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The same IP (clearly cruising for a block) has returned to Jimbo's page.
Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia; Child discipline; Corporal punishment; Corporal punishment in the home; List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone should copy this to Sue's meta page in the Child Protection section.
She can forward this case to WMF legal while they're looking at the issue.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
neved
Gregarious
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by neved » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:54 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ion_policy
Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." Golda Meir

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:04 am

neved wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ion_policy
Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
For God's sake, someone mail the man the links.

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Wer900 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:18 am

Hersch wrote:
Tarc wrote:I tend to (at best) skim any blog entry written by Damian or Barbour, honestly. If the Wikipediocracy was the National League, they'd be the pitchers slotted 9th in the batting order. If they manage to drop a bunt, it's a good day.
And Tarc, you would be the guy running naked across the field, being pursued by security, honestly.
What we need to do is publish a post, jointly authored by Tarc and TDA, with their "honest" version of events, and then we can do historiographical analysis. There is plenty of fodder for polemics on this site and that.

About CP concerns, Jimbo will not care. Take it directly to Scotland Yard if you're in the UK, honestly; this will be a multinational investigation. Mancunium, please talk to your friends among the British peerage.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:15 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Now you criticize the article as though you still are unable to understand its purpose. Would it not be more honest for you to link to your previous defenses of Demiurge1000's contacts with teenagers, so that readers knows your true position, that "teenagers can take care of themselves"?
If that's to me, yeah, it is a fair summary my position that "teenagers can take care of themselves." They can and do every day.

I'd love to link you to the previous discussion in which I reprinted a piece I had written about "Chucky Baby," but the mods have made that thread invisible. I suppose I could dig it up again, but I'm lazy.


RfB

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Zoloft » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:32 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Now you criticize the article as though you still are unable to understand its purpose. Would it not be more honest for you to link to your previous defenses of Demiurge1000's contacts with teenagers, so that readers knows your true position, that "teenagers can take care of themselves"?
If that's to me, yeah, it is a fair summary my position that "teenagers can take care of themselves." They can and do every day.

I'd love to link you to the previous discussion in which I reprinted a piece I had written about "Chucky Baby," but the mods have made that thread invisible. I suppose I could dig it up again, but I'm lazy.


RfB
I just looked in our dustbin under "Chucky Baby" and found nuttin' - could you give me another keyword?

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:50 am

Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Now you criticize the article as though you still are unable to understand its purpose. Would it not be more honest for you to link to your previous defenses of Demiurge1000's contacts with teenagers, so that readers knows your true position, that "teenagers can take care of themselves"?
If that's to me, yeah, it is a fair summary my position that "teenagers can take care of themselves." They can and do every day.

I'd love to link you to the previous discussion in which I reprinted a piece I had written about "Chucky Baby," but the mods have made that thread invisible. I suppose I could dig it up again, but I'm lazy.


RfB
I just looked in our dustbin under "Chucky Baby" and found nuttin' - could you give me another keyword?
It was in the Demiurge thread that was veering out of control.

t

Edit: Found it and used mod magic to post it for you below. -Zoloft :evilgrin: :sparkles:

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:45 am

Ah, I found it. This is a piece that was part of a column for the NBA blog BlazersEdge that I published back on Nov. 1, 2010.
Timbo wrote:
The Giants and the A's.

The San Francisco Giants have gone up 3 games to 1 in the World Series. I know this because I saw it on SportsCenter, not because I have watched a game or because I care. I haven't seen a baseball game for three full seasons, nor have I attended a game in four. I have simply given up on the sport. Screw you, Bud Selig.

I didn't always feel like this about the so-called national pastime, however. I was actually a fairly huge baseball fan when I was a kid in Northern California, collecting massive numbers of bubblegum cards (cards used to come with a stick of really crappy gum back in the day) and attending games in the Bay Area with the Youth Advisor of the Eureka United Methodist Church, an overloud red-haired walrus of a man that my parents and I used to cattily call "Chuckie Baby" behind his back.

I'm sure that there were more than a few tongues that wagged in the church — this middle-aged man making half a dozen trips to San Francisco each summer with young boys in tow. Back in the days before multi-million dollar payouts by the Catholic Church for the sexual malfeasance of its employees, this unconventional state of affairs wasn't seen as an urgent matter calling for intervention of church officials. It was good old Chuck, well established and well known, a rather homely bachelor who claimed to be in need of companionship for the long drive and willing to split motel costs with willing kids who otherwise wouldn't be able to see a baseball game.

San Francisco and Oakland was where the teams were, so that's where Chuck and the boys went. QED.

Would you let your kids go on such a trip?

My parents didn't seem to have a problem with it. I probably went to SF eight or ten times with Chuckie Baby over the years. I was in junior high — 14, 15, 16, thereabouts — old enough to take care of myself.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Freud is said to have said. Sometimes a middle-aged man taking young boys to San Francisco to watch professional baseball because he's a lonely person that wants company during the 5 hour drive is just a middle-aged man taking boys to baseball games.

Chuck was straight, we were straight (or at least celibate, I don't reckon I can speak for the orientation of everyone who ever went), and nothing improper ever happened, unless you count the inevitable sexual proposition or two that would be made to teenage boys in the company of a middle-aged man pretty clearly not their father in San Francisco back in the middle 1970s. I mean, seriously, virtually every single trip at least one dude would make a pitch. I think one trip I got hit on four times, either in fast food restaurants or walking on Fisherman's Wharf, which was a mandatory stop on each visit.

Chuck wasn't oblivious, we always talked about these things. Dudes trolling for boys thought he was a "chicken hawk" working as a pimp, he observed. But he wasn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Chuck covered himself in this way: he always took 2 or 3 boys to games with him, never ever only one, because that would open up the possibility of a "he said - he said" situation. He felt there was safety in numbers.

Anyway, I was always an A's fan. Oakland was not only a better team in the 1970s, but if you've ever sat in both the Oakland Coliseum in the sun to watch baseball played on grass and then sat in the Candlestick Park wind tunnel to watch games played on astroturf amidst blowing trash and seagulls, it was the only rational affiliation. But Chuck was a Giants fan, through and through. He'd go watch either team, depending on his schedule and who was in town, but it was the exploits of the National Leaguers who really warmed his soul.

Finally in 2010 the Giants are moving towards what will likely be their first World Championship since their move from New York City to San Francisco in 1958. This news has affected me. I found myself thinking back to my boyhood and to the dedication of the greatest, truest Giants fan I have ever known — Chuckie Baby.

On Sunday evening, I decided to try to track down Chuck to congratulate him. After all these years, after all the ten hour road trips, after tens or hundreds of thousands of miles traveled and untold thousands of dollars spent, his faith as a fan was about to be finally rewarded. I wanted to thank him for sharing the sport with me. I didn't ever really have a chance to do that properly and was looking forward to talking to him and catching up on his life.

Charles R. Hilgeman died in Eureka, California on September 4, 2008.

He was 67 years old at the time of his death.

Go get 'em, Giants!

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 am

Nice story, Tim. It has fuck all to do wih this situation where real names are not known to parents, parents probably don't know and there are no smart "more than two people present" procedures, but it was a nice story.

Goes to show what Demiwit and wikipedia should be doing, though.And illustrating how far away from being acceptable that they are. Perhaps that was your intent.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Peter Damian » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:36 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Back in the days before multi-million dollar payouts by the Catholic Church for the sexual malfeasance of its employees, this unconventional state of affairs wasn't seen as an urgent matter calling for intervention of church officials.


The good old days, eh.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia punishes child safety whistleblower

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:39 am

HRIP7 wrote:
neved wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ion_policy
Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
For God's sake, someone mail the man the links.
I forwarded jwales@wikia.com my mailing to arbcom.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

Post Reply