This discussion involves all of us. Your interpretation of "no pedo userbox = never talk about the issue" is without weight. We do not allow people to promote pedophilia, that is a separate issue than an admin (yourself) inappropriately banning a user for their personal beliefs. Just because it happens to be a related issue does not mean you have the right to silence discussion in hopes of killing it. I'm sorry that this specific issue deals with a topic no one wants to touch with a 10 foot pole, but your paranoia that such a discussion is harmful to Wikipedia, and can only be discussed with the arbcom is absurd.
If it's talked about in the open, more people will see that you have blocked someone for their personal beliefs, and not for their actions. That is something that can and will eventually slide into other issues, completely unrelated to pedophilia. Wikipedians, all Wikipedians, have the fundamental right, given to them by Foundation policy, to edit Wikipedia regardless of their personal beliefs. This is an alarming issue that people should be very upset about. It's very unfortunate that it happens to deal with an issue that causes people to act out of emotion, rather than logic. For the sake of Wikipedia's basic principals, do try to be objective.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 25, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Your comment is here forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Please direct all future correspondence to them. Please discontinue agitation on Wikipedia and on the mailing list.
Fred
And this user did no such thing. Not only that, but seems to be unaware that the statement made on their user page was a violation of anything. Even after reading the arbcom case, I don't see how this text that Zanthalon wrote could be considered something to be banned over:
"Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific. I would stress, however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under the statutory age of consent. I do not have a great deal of time to devote to Wikipedia, so most of it up until now has been devoted to pedophilia-related articles. Hopefully in the future, I will be able to spend more time on other articles as well."
Why did you not just delete the userpage, or blank that section? Your actions are that of an overzealous right winged mother who just found out that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood. You have judged this user based on their personal beliefs, and not their actions. This is entirely inappropriate, and needs to be undone.
Might I note that users who have -created- pro-pedophile userboxes have not been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. One recent creator has never been banned for those actions, in fact. The ban of Zanthalon is completely unjust, and violates the blocking policy, the arbcom case, and the Foundation's policy on discrimination.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 25, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported during that case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/ Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all
As I said there:
"we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious way."
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