I wrote:
> Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it
published? And how was
> it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it?
Fred Bauder replied:
It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and
posted on the
Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago.
Please provide a link.
Basically it says don't discuss issues regarding
pedophilia activists
on-wiki; send everything to the Arbitration Committee.
Does it also say that known pedophiles are to be banned on-sight
(irrespective of their on-wiki activities)?
This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban appeals
privately.
Such a procedural policy falls within the ArbCom's authority. An
outright ban on editing by known pedophiles does not. To your
knowledge, has the latter been instituted?
> > If a close examination of his editing record
shows no activist
> > activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which
> > established his identity.
> There has been no _assertion_ of activist
activity on the wiki. Shall
> we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their
> editing records?
No, we assume good faith.
Except with pedophiles? You just suggested that the ArbCom conduct an
investigation to rule out a behavior that has not been alleged.
Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is
editing, we don't know
it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't
usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
Right, and there is no dispute that "aggressive POV pushers" should be
banned. Whether that POV is pro-pedophilia, pro-Nazism,
pro-mainstream political position, or pro-anything (or anti-anything,
for that matter), such conduct is unacceptable.
We're discussing the practice of banning pedophiles who have *not*
engaged in such on-wiki behavior.