On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and I also agree that this is not germane to the discussion.
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage, or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient, and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang themselves with.
And I can think of many groups more likely than pedophiles to perform edits reflecting advocacy. But these people aren't near-universally abhorred, so we wouldn't think of barring their participation.
If we had a million perfect people begging to contribute to Wikipedia, we could be even more selective with who we allow to edit. But that's not reality.
My point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them.
But clearly you draw a distinction between what is merely "our personal opinions of them" and what is a legitimate concern which affects our ability to accomplish our goals. I don't think this is the distinction on which we disagree. Rather, I think it's more your other belief that "the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that they _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable."
The Wikimedia Foundation has granted the community the right to decide who can and who cannot access its servers. That means we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason.
And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone. Whether or not they have engaged in misconduct in the past is not something that can be changed. We need to focus on the future when deciding who to allow to edit.
However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration.
Why is that not unconscionable?
There's also the issue of negative publicity.
I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread.
Not properly.
I'm even more puzzled by the suggestion that they be barred from editing articles related to pedophilia. Provided that their edits don't reflect a pro-pedophilia bias, what's the problem?
The problem is that they've admitted to an inability to think rationally about the topic.
I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of pedophilia, but not everyone's.
Whose is? Is mine?
I don't know. Is it?
It means that we set aside our personal opinions and decline to judge him/her as one judges someone on trial.
What "personal opinions" should we set aside?
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, working hand in hand with children, creating an encyclopedia.
But that means our judgment should be harsher, not more lenient. Were this a trial, it *would* be unfair to judge someone for something they are likely to do, rather than something they have done. But this isn't a trial, and I'm not the one treating it like one - you are.