After submitting an appeal that requested the reasons for the block being put in place, I received the following:
Looking at your contributions, there were a number which were clearly in breach of Wikipedia's child protection policies. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection
As Wikipedia has a zero tolerance approach on child protection issues, you were blocked indefinitely. I hope this explains matters sufficiently.
I responded:
Many thanks for your swift response. Would you mind me asking which contributions you are referring to, as I have browsed several of the more recent ones in the hope of identifying such breaches and am still none the wiser? Nowhere do I see contributions that breach the child protection policies, and I certainly haven't advocated anything that would put children at risk.
Thanking you in advance.
He responded:
The most egregious edits I saw were
-where you defend a scientist who supervised child abuse
-where you claim all men are attracted to 15-year-olds.
Both of these are covered by Wikipedia's "child protection policy", which is very strict in its implementation.
To clarify the above:
- The former relates to the article on the Kinsey studies. The article originally said: 'It has been stated that some of the data in his reports could not have been obtained without observation or participation in child sexual abuse, or through collaborations with child molesters'. I appended to this 'though this criticism in and of itself neither invalidates nor confirms Kinsey's findings, residing more in ad hominem territory'.
- The latter relates to the article on ephebophilia, which originally said, on the basis of a source document, that attraction to individuals in mid to late adolescence is 'common' among men. In fact, the source document said 'most men', and I felt that the word 'common' was misrepresentative.
I then said:
Many thanks for your response. I appreciate you citing examples. I would, however, like to contest that these do not violate the child protection policy. Neither of them does either of the following:
- pursues or facilitates inappropriate adult–child relationships
- advocates inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children),
My contribution on the Kinsey studies was intended to highlight a discrepancy between criticism of the scientist and criticism of the scientific work itself. The criticism of Kinsey may be valid on moral grounds, but it should not be conflated with criticism of his findings. His methodology may be repugnant to any right-thinking individual, but as a methodology it needs to be critiqued scientifically, not simply by casting aspersions at the character of the scientist. It has been drawn to my attention that perhaps I should not have inserted this (valid) interpretation of the criticism. I would accept that this could have been discussed on the Talk page first. Nonetheless, I don't feel that highlighting the fact that people are criticising 'the man and not the method' constitutes a child protection issue.
With regard to the ephebophilia article, I set out my reasons for changing the word 'common' to 'the norm' on its Talk page, stating that the word 'common' misrepresented the source being cited (which is still cited, incidentally). I also explained that my use of 'the norm' was not intended in a normative sense but rather as a statistical norm. In the end, contributor consensus settled on using the exact wording used in the source to avoid misrepresentation thereof. The abandonment of the original word, 'common', vindicated my point, even if the ultimate choice of wording differed from my edit. Again, I don't feel that this constitutes a child protection issue.
I understand the need for a strict child protection policy, but I honestly feel that I was judged very harshly when the block was implemented, as the above explanations clearly show that I had good reasons to make the edits I did in good faith, and certainly without any ulterior motive.
He replied:
On the ephebophilia article, you state that the term was not intended in the normative sense, but as a statistical norm. This is contradicted by the edit you made previously [I had first used the word 'normal' rather than 'the norm']. Indeed, you were specificially stating that attraction to children was normal - which falls under advocating inappropriate child-adult relationships.
I'm afraid the long and short of the matter is that you are now no longer able to edit Wikipedia. I do not see this changing and do not intend to argue the point further, but if any other members of the committee disagree, we will be back in touch. Please ensure you are copying in the arbitration committee in responses.
I said:
Many thanks for your response. I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it, for two reasons:
1) Stating that attraction to those in mid to late adolescence is normal is not the same as advocating relationships with them. One should not conflate attraction with action.
2) The scientific community's view on this matter is unequivocal; they roundly rejected the inclusion of hebephilia in the DSM-V (the 'bible' of psychiatry) because an overwhelming majority agreed that attraction to anyone in puberty is, from the biological/psychiatric perspective, normal, and to the scientific community ephebophilia is simply a nonsense term for the same reason.
I understand that this is an emotive issue for some, but dovetailing with scientific opinion does not constitute a violation of the child protection policy as formulated and neither should stating that the attraction is considered normal by the scientific community be taken as advocacy of illegal adult-child relationships.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed