From Encyclopedia Dramatica
< User:T(Redirected from WP:CP)
Jump to navigationJump to search

CHILDPROTECT is the stalled effort in various Wikimedia projects to pretend they give a shit about protecting children. The policy is designed to give people a false sense of security about letting their children use and edit Wikipedia and its associated projects, despite the vast stores of porn available on Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons in particular. Wikipedia has been getting a lot of bad press about the vast amounts of pornography hosted on the site, and the use of these projects by children, and particularly schools.

It began as WP:Pedophilia, created 27 April 2010 by MZMcBride to instill a false sense of security in parents who let their children surf Wikipedia, by making it seem like they are taking adequate precautions to guarantee children's privacy and keep potential groomers, molesters, pedophiles and seducers off of their encyclopedia.

On July 5, it was later renamed to a less alarming "WP:Child protection". But that's okay because McBride had prepared for the worst and backed up his precious original 'Pedophilia' policy name 6 days prior, July 29, 2010 on Meta.


March madness

On March 7, 2012 a fellow named WPFavicon.png Beta_M explained the hidden conspiracy behind his block:

There's an e-mail from User:Geni accusing me of distributing child pornography and suggesting that it is linked to Sukumizu Girl. I believe that this is an attempt to stack the votes.


—Beta_M at 03:23, 7 March 2012

This was a deletion nominated Feb 27 by Michaeldsuarez which Beta contributed to on Feb 1. It was closed March 7 by WPFavicon.png mattbuck. In the meantime, Larry Sanger sensed an opportunity to attention whore yet again.

On March 9, 2012, a fellow initialistic editor WPFavicon.png Rd232 copied the content to Commons, assuming that what policy goes on TOW applies to all Wikimedia, as none can oppose the ArbCom.

On March 13, link= carbuncle Delicious carbuncle stalked Jimbo and created this thread about the topic, asking for more input. He decides to lie:

"In June 2010, WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner was quoted in a news story .. Shortly after this, META:Pedophilia was created on META which attempted to document that policy (WP:CHILDPROTECT already existed here)."

Jana Winter wrote the Fox News article on June 25. "CHILDPROTECT" did not exist at that time. An article existed, but it too was called WP:Pedophilia, just like on Meta. Only on July 5, over a week after the story published Sue's quote, was Wikipedia's policy renamed to childprotect.

March 15: WPFavicon.png SirFozzie of Wikipedia's ArbCom decides to get involved in the Commons dispute! It's like when Glory was going to use Dawn as The Key to rip down the barriers between dimensions! Naturally, as a well-groomed ArbCom representative, he argues for the people to defer power to a secret cabal:

For those above who suggest that such blocks be handled publicly, I want you to look at the drama above, and ask yourself.. "Do I want to repeat this every single time something like this happens?". There is no way to "Square the Circle" of handling such requests publicly. I will say I don't know how Commons should handle it (having no equivalent of an ArbCom or something like that to work with the WMF, or to handle such requests privately to look at the situation dispassionately with an eye to the evidence.


WPFavicon.png SirFozzie at 16:20, 15 March 2012

March 16: WPFavicon.png Philippe of the WikiMedia Foundation Office steps in and globally locks Beta's account. This provokes a reaction from WPFavicon.png Saibo, protesting dat injustice. Eventually rants further and ragequits the community.

March 19: thekohser brings up the issue on Wikipediocracy at Beta_M -- the anarchist child porn fan?.

April snowballing

The arguments continued well into the next month:

What you are proposing is that pædophiles should have their accounts blocked, presumably leading to them creating sockpuppets so that people won't know who they are. A blocking policy is unlikely going to get those users away from Commons; at most, it will lead to pædophiles being more hidden to most users (and thus more dangerous to children). If you do instead care about the protection of children, it would be much more practical if users remain under the same well-known usernames so that people know who they are.


WPFavicon.png Stefan4 at 20:00, 11 April 2012

Conflict continued as April 12-13 WPFavicon.png Tarc was attacked by WPFavicon.png Saibo over his lack of contributions. This spawned a retaliation by WPFavicon.png Rd232 April 13-14 against Saibo. As a result WPFavicon.png Mattbuck decided to block Saibo for a week. That of course, can't go un-countered, so the very next day Wdlayslaw (aka WPFavicon.png Taxiarchos228) requests that Mattbuck's rights be revoked. This discussion lasts 3 days to April 18th. During this time, WPFavicon.png Niabot had launched a simultaneous strike against WPFavicon.png Tarc.


In actuality, children are not banned from editing even if they reveal their age and personal details, and competent molester-wannabes actually interested in hurting them would simply, in reaction to awareness of these rules, simply be subtler and simply be creepy up until they acquire a means to communicate outside of the Wikimedia grounds, at which point the community can deny responsibility for facilitating them.


In order to deal with the issue, the Wikimedia Foundation devised an ingenious four-point plan:

  1. Require anybody who has very unprofessionally revealed their unhealthy interest in raping little kids to get a fresh IP address and a brand new anonymous account so that nobody, especially not the WMF, knows who they are.
  2. To avoid undue hysteria, make a policy that anybody publicly accusing a Wikipedia editor of being a pedophile will be b&. All trace of the allegations will be removed, outside of a special Star Chamber tribunal.
  3. Institute a great purge of Wikimedia Commons' bottomless pr0n archives. Also their topless pr0n archives. This will help make Wikipedia look safe for kids to use in school and play, so they can keep uploading those cell phone pictures of themselves standing in bathing suits in their backyards tagged with date, time, and GPS accurate to within 10 feet.
  4. Encourage anonymous IPs and child editors to, em, collaborate. Don't ask... don't tell.


The only minor problem is that the plan is implemented like any other policy on Wikipedia, namely, by having admins run around in circles screaming at each other based on personal agendas and feuds. "You violated civility rules by calling me uncivil!" "No, you violated civility rules by saying that when I called you uncivil it was a violation of civility rules when it clearly isn't." There's one public case on Commons, another on Meta, both of which are unaware of the secret evidence studied by ArbCom, which in turn is not privy to the elite insights of the WMF office action; most influential is the debate on Jimbo Wales' talk page by people who don't know anything about any of them. Five hundred screens and four ArbCom cases later people have forgotten what the hell they were arguing over. So far it is by no means clear that all these rules have helped even a single child find safety and comfort in an adult's loving arms.

Cast of character quotes

I believe that such responsible pedophiles should be welcome in our community.


WPFavicon.png Dcoetzee 05:27, 10 March 2012

We should not ban people from Commons for acts performed offsite


WPFavicon.png mattbuck 13:00, 10 March 2012

Agreed with mattbuck, moreover shall we block people who accuse other user of offsite crimes (or ideas), even after warning?


WPFavicon.png PierreSelim 19:25, 10 March 2012

I don't agree even with a priori banning people who state they have sex with children. As long as someone is doing good work on Commons, I do not care that they are pedophiles, Nazis or serial killers.


link= Engels Andre Engels 03:46, 13 March 2012

External links




"We believe that the community should make responsible decisions for the good of the projects and their users."
I see three possible avenues:
  1. they could propose an amendment to the Terms of Use, which would require a 30-day discussion period with the community and final approval by the Board;
  2. they could propose a community policy uniquely for Commons;
  3. they could include language in the global ban policy, which is under discussion, that addresses the community concerns.

Rejected concepts

T/CHILDPROTECT is part of a series on
UnV& Pedophiles [-+]

Aaron WilliamsAdam LanzaAlenonimoAlison RappAmber ButtrumAndy MaherAngryjediAnimatedJamesBeefraveBikerfoxBill CosbyBritbongCasey AnthonyCamheadChaosscizzorsColonel McBadassComicalityCyril SmithDaddyOFiveDahvie VanityDangermanDeekerDidaskalosDynacatlovesmeEric RidenourErik MöllerFergie OliverFrank BonafedeGreg MazujianGreville JannerG-ZayGeosheaGalaxyRailways2199Harrison DigfootHumonHypnoHunter MooreIrish282James Terry Mitchell JrJaSonicJerry Peetjervaise brooke hamsterJimmy SavileJoey NigroJohn Patrick RogersJoseph KonyJustin BerryJustin DabrowKaitlyn HuntKatherine MarionKyle PerkinsLena DunhamLeonard F. Shaner Jr.LittleCloudLtFlaggerLogansperman2Lucian HodobocM. ChaosMagicrichMandoPonyMar9122Michael JacksonMikevirusMatrooko11MZMcBrideNathanrNeil FoxOmegaloreOnideus Mad HatterOnisionPaul WalkerPennywisePurple AkiPutridRalph SquillaceRiverman72Roger SampsonSam DeathWalkerSam RassenfossSarah ButtsShane LeeSibeScientologySethistoSophie LabelleTheAmazingAtheistThomas Watt HamiltonTimboxTrap-kunTyciolUncle GrandpaUpdownmostlyViolentacrezVonHeltonWoody AllenW. T. SnacksYoung Tubers UnitedYtaskZeitgueist

Related Topics [-+]
Wikipedia series.jpg

T/CHILDPROTECT is part of a series on


Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.