On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action) to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one which acknowledges the grey area.
Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing. Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (à la the tabloid press).
Hypothetical:
Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit patterns etc.
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned. We just may not have caught them (yet, or ever).
Sounds like a policy to have rules trump common sense. If the new account continues to behave sensibly there should be absolutely no need to impose further punitive actions. If we have succeeded in getting someone to play nice the original disciplinary action has accomplished its aims. Further blocking without genuine cause is only for admins who like to play power games.
Ec
There is no reasonable doubt that pedophiles, actual convicted pedophile who have molested children and served time in prison, and perhaps continue their activities, edit Wikipedia. So long as they do not identify themselves as pedophiles and engage in pedophile activism we do not look for them, although, I suppose, should they use their real names and offer identifying information, someone might someday point one out. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. The point is, provided a user edits in a reasonable way, we don't attempt to identify the person behind the user or whatever troubles they had or may have. That would include the example above, unless checkuser happened to expose them. But for it to be likely for checkuser to do so they would have to engage in troublesome editing. I certainly don't save ips banned users edited from and then systematically troll for re-emergence of new users and don't think anyone should. A troublesome editor will continue to be troublesome. If they don't, they are not a troublesome editor, just someone who had some trouble.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh wow. No, just no. We do not ban editors because we -found out- they were pedophiles, or that they once identified themselves as such. That is a direct violation of the Foundation's no discrimination policy.
-- ~~~~