Wikipedia talk:Child protection
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child protection page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
Timeframe for violations[edit]
How long ago does a violation of this policy need to have occurred for it to no longer be actionable?
For example: comments on an article's talk page many years ago, and where the particular user account has not been active for years as well.
Is material in the example actioned upon or, do we consider it stale and unactionable due to its age and the user no longer being active? -- dsprc [talk] 05:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you have some information about a particular case, even if stale, you can visit User:Arbitration Committee and use "Email this user" to report the user name along with a brief explanation of what seems to be a problem. If your recent edit at Virtuous Pedophiles is related to the issue, I recommend going easy with the edits because adding an external link to an advocacy organization could be a big problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Related to some ancient discussion over at Talk:Victor Salva, which may or may not violate this policy. It's old as hell, and contributors are long gone so, IDK if it would be actionable or not. (Came across it after some minor expansion of articles on criminals in this category.)
- If ArbCom is the venue: I'll let someone else take up that mantle because formatting a report there would be a nightmare on mobile.
- Please also note the material in diff are prevention organizations and mainstream pubs, not advocacy. -- dsprc [talk] 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No legal threats[edit]
I added a sub section below "Handling of reports":
=== No legal threats ===
If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. A polite report of a legal problem is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.
but it has been removed with the edit summary "this doesn't seem to have any obvious relevance here".
The section is of course relevant, because a natural inclination of an agreived parent is to threaten to seek legal recourse, and we want to assist them, not have to block them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems rather hypothetical. I can't recall any incident where there was a WP:NLT problem as a result of this policy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Is this discriminatory?[edit]
"pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely." I was curious about the sentence, but isn't this equivalent to discrimination against the mentally ill? --H.K.pauw (talk · contribs) 05:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Certain mental illnesses and conditions are incompatible with collectively building an encyclopedia. This is one of them. Another, for example, could be being intoxicated to the point of disruption, delusions, and severe intellectual disabilities that prevent competent contributions EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @H.K.pauw: Not all pedophiles are mentally ill. Also, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. So unless if an account tries to get over-friendly with minor/shows danger, then that account wouldn't be blocked. Like EvergreenFir said above, the goal of Wikipedia community is to build an encyclopeadia through collaboration. No matter what behavior causes problems to that, is not permitted. This includes pedophilia among other things. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a social networking site, nor a dating site, nor a platform for pedophiles. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)