Wikipedia talk:Zero tolerance

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Proposal to add child safety policy

As requested by @Remsense these changes have been moved to the talk page. I propose this addition to the common zero-tolerance activities section. The reason for this is that there have been a number of blocks that were in violation of the WP:CHILDPROTECT, that could appear as questionable. This change I propose is to help provide guidance and transparency as to the criteria under which a block may occur. These items are listed based on previous blocks and the goals of pedophile advocacy groups which are likely to be at odds with the spirit of the Child protection policy.

Endangering children: Actions that are contrary to WP:CHILDPROTECT. In addition to illegal activity
- anyone who self-identifies as a pedophile
- attempts to normalize/encourage pedophilic behavior
- provide external links (including references) to sites that normalize/encourage pedophilic behavior
- assumes that a child molester isn't a pedophile
- improve the public image of a pedophile
- lower the age of consent (lowing the age of Age of majority/Emancipation of minors is permitted as long as it is not in the context consent or marriage)
- Presenting opinions on child pornography which are widely contrary to laws through out the world unless scoped to a region where such laws are not widely controversial
- Depictions or descriptions of flags or other symbols that identify a pedophile or related group (except those used by the government to warn of dangers to children)

Subanark (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Subanark I have no objection to adding a line of some sort, but there is no need to restate CHILDPROTECT. I'm a big fan of the "KISS" rule. Less is usually better. Perhaps something like Any actions, including advocacy, or editing of any kind, which may be reasonably construed as endangering minors, or otherwise violating WP:CHILDPROTECT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Subanark I went ahead and added a little meat to the already referenced child porn. I think that should cover it. Thanks for the suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel as though I do not have good guidance in this section, as what constitutes "gravely illegal"? The terrorism example for me reminds me too much of The War on Terror and how it was overused as political talking point to instill fear and an excuse to pass (in my view point) laws that intruded on privacy. As for the Child porn example, it is also confusing as there is a lot of concern around children taking selfies and if that is in violation or not. If you were to ask me what is gravely illegal, I would probably think of human trafficking or involuntary human experimentation. Subanark (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]