George William Herbert wrote:
Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with anything approaching a straight face.
However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we do detect something. One is acknowledging cultural and technical reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better than random luck at finding these people. The other is disregarding any responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means.
Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me. But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then we're aware and on notice. The question is, entirely, what do we do then.
Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats?
In my view, we're doing nothing of the sort (and constructing a false sense of security by claiming otherwise).
I doubt that many pedophiles will seek to recruit victims via our wikis, but if this occurs, these account bans are highly unlikely to counter it to any significant extent.
Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by association?
I see the potential for negative publicity stemming from the perception that we seek to create the illusion of improved safety and integrity.