Anthony wrote:
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 expressed my opinion that banning all self-identified pedophiles is ineffectual. I then misinterpreted your response to mean that if this were true, we wouldn't be doing it.
Upon further rumination, I now believe that your point was that if we'd convinced all pedophile editors to not publicly disclose their pedophilia, there would be no self-identified pedophiles for us to ban (rendering this discussion moot). Do I now understand correctly?
I haven't presented such a scenario. I believe that a natural consequence of the continual bans is that over time, pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia. This means that _fewer_ pedophiles will do so, not that none will (and not that the full effect is instantaneous).
[Incidentally, "entourages" was a typo for "encourages."]
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.
The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia).
And again, those issues had _nothing_ to do with the ban (which would have occurred even if the user had a spotless editing record). We're discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether this particular editor was an asset to the community. (As I noted, if it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the pedophilia issue came to light.)
To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring?
The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked)"
How does that pertain to the editor in question?
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.
I don't know whether you're correct or incorrect, but the latter is my sincere hope.
We've come to a consensus, as a community, that "some sort of ArbCom rulings" are to be followed.
1. Please don't quote me out of context. The above implies that I seek to belittle the ArbCom, and that isn't so. I referred to "some sort of ArbCom ruling" because the precise nature of the decision is unclear. Contextually, I was stating that the ruling should *not* be ignored.
2. The ArbCom is a consensus-backed body, but its power is far from limitless, and there absolutely is no consensus that its actions should never be questioned.
I seek to determine the nature and basis of the policy that the ArbCom is purported to have instituted. Only then would it be appropriate for the community to evaluate whether the committee acted within its authority.
There is no assertion that the ArbCom's rulings should not be followed.
So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be "unconscionable" if they are effective?
No. I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I believe that a grey solution is vastly preferable to the realistic alternative.
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?
I regard the statement as overly broad; it is applicable to both physical space and cyberspace, and I believe that some procedures effective in the former are impractical in the latter.