> Also,
please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles
> from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify
> themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic
> activities will be overlooked).
If that were true, then we wouldn't have
banned any self-identified
pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole
conversation is pointless.
So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence?
No, you asked me to address your point that <insert untrue statement>.
I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true.
I don't
think they're going to change just because what they're doing is
bannable. In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors
fully expect to eventually be banned
Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia?
I only know of one such case, and in that case, yes, I think he
clearly expected to eventually be banned.
I'm not including the pedophiles who make no public on-Internet
mentions of their pedophilia.
- the only
question is how much we put up with before banning them.
How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with?
No.
And looking at
the edits of whatshisname, I think he fits in that
category. I'll bring it up again - this wasn't his first block, or even
his first indefinite block.
And I'll once again note that his past blocks had nothing to do with
pedophilia and have no connection to this ban.
Both his pedophilia (or claims of pedophilia) and his behavior which
led to his first indefinite block are results of his character. I see
no reason to wait for the latter when we already know the former.
You claim to agree with me that pedophiles are bad people. So really
I find it hard to see how you don't get this.
And according
to Ryan, and I assume the Arb Com checked this, "he's been
banned from quite a few other sites for the way he talks about his
pedophilia (including LiveJournal for creating the 'childlove
community')".
There is no assertion that he engaged in any comparable conduct at Wikipedia.
We banned him before he did. This is a good thing.
And you
yourself claimed, in the paragraph directly prior to this one,
that "if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be
tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken". So which is it?
To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring?
The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that
problematic activities will be overlooked)"
I see a
difference between whether or not you have the right to do
something, and whether or not it's in your best interest to do so. When
you asked me whether or not banning Pakistani editors is "acceptable", I
answered based on the latter. Had you asked whether or not the Hindi
Wikipedia had a right to ban Pakistani editors, well, I would have
responded with "sure, they have that right, until the WMF decides to take
it away from them".
To be clear, you're stating that while you would regard such an act as
inappropriate, you believe that the Hindi Wikipedia currently is
empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation to ban Pakistani editors if it
so chooses. Correct?
I'm not completely familiar with the rules of the Hindi Wikipedia, but
I assume they have a method of banning which doesn't involve
petitioning the Wikimedia Foundation, so yes.
> Please
direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was reached to
> ban all known pedophiles from editing.
We're having one of them right now, I guess.
And so far, no one has been
bold enough to try to overturn the de facto ban.
Try unblocking one of the blocked pedophiles, if you'd like.
We have more than a de facto ban; we have some sort of ArbCom ruling.
You and I both know that it's foolhardy, futile and disruptive to defy
such a decision.
We've come to a consensus, as a community, that "some sort of ArbCom
rulings" are to be followed. I'm not sure where the discussion was in
which that consensus was reached - there probably wasn't one - but
there you go.
No, pedophiles
are assessed based on their past behavior as well. If
whatshisname didn't post all over the Internet bragging about being a
pedophile, he never would have been banned (for being a pedophile,
anyway).
Perhaps by "behavior" you mean "on-wiki behavior". But handcuffing
yourself with that rule is pointless. It treats Wikipedia like a game,
and only promotes trolling.
I don't mean "on-wiki behavior," but I do mean "behavior directly
related to the wikis."
Handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless.
You (and others) take this a step further by assuming
that
self-identified pedophiles will commit on-wiki misconduct (or that the
likelihood is high enough to treat it as a certainty) and that
permanently blocking their accounts will prevent this.
I never claimed anything would prevent all on-wiki misconduct. I
merely claim that banning self-identified pedophiles helps the project
more than it harms it.
Don't think
for a moment that I fail to understand that line of thinking. I would
be lying if I claimed that the idea of blocking pedophiles on-sight
was devoid of logic.
But for reasons that I've explained, I regard such an approach as
unfair and ineffectual. And truth be told, if I only saw it as
unfair, I wouldn't complain; I view our wikis' safety and integrity as
infinitely more important than the manner in which a
productively-editing pedophile is treated. But because I also view
the approach as ineffectual, I see nothing to offset the unfairness.
So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be
"unconscionable" if they are effective?
> The
"hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
> space with cyberspace.
How about "collaborating with
children"?
That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology.
No, I don't see it as a quibble. I'm willing to modify my statement.
"I agree that we shouldn't judge him/her as one judges someone on
trial. Rather, we should judge him/her as one judges someone applying
for a volunteer job, collaborating with children, creating an
encyclopedia." Do you agree or disagree with that?
As I explained to George, my point is that some
measures commonly taken in physical space are
ineffective in cyberspace.
They're ineffective on Wikipedia, perhaps. But that's because
Wikipedia chooses not to implement effective measures to enforce bans.
My wife teaches high school online (ages 14-18 for those of you
unfamiliar with the US school systems). Do you think her employer is
justified in firing someone who is found to be a self-admitted
pedophile? What about the online middle school (ages 11-14) or online
elementary school (ages 6-11)? These are real schools that exist "in
cyberspace", and I sure hope they have policies banning pedophiles.