Thomas Dalton wrote:
Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue. It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not really sure what's best in that situation.
If someone is self-describing - and particularly if they are doing it "loud and proud" on their userpage, there are really only two possibilities:
1) Most likely they are trolling. In which case, we ask them to desist from trolling. If they don't we show them the door, regardless of their own beliefs or inclinations. This is incredibly disruptive and trolling is intolerable.
2) Possibly they are what they say. In which case they are trying to present their inclinations as "normal" or "within the spectrum of legitimate wikipedian views". They are presenting them as no different from "user is a democrat" or "user is Spanish". Now, if that's not an attempt to promote or advocacy, I don't know what it. It may not be encouraging pedophilia, but it is certainly encouraging the acceptance of it. Semantics of "of they are referring to an inclination not an act" are silly - the disruptive effect is identical.
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. Using that project to present something most people view as unacceptable as normal is a misuse of wikipedia and brings us into disrepute.
Ask yourself this: is the project best served by stamping hard on this activity, and losing a few trolls/advocates/"girl-lovers", or are we best taking a permissive line and losing goodwill, public relations, concerned parents who edit? Forget ethics and rights, and be pragmatic - what is least disruptive of our mission. You really want to wait till there's a "Wikipedophile" story in the New York Times: they link it with a negative spin on our Bomis roots and this will cost us dearly.
Ethics, of course, is the clincher for many of us. Children first - zero tolerance: but I'm happy to ally my ethics with those who agree for utilitarian, pragmatic, and positivist reasons.
No, is is fairly clear. We will not hound people for their personal beliefs, but disrupting the project in this way will not be tolerated.
Doc