I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: That sounds reasonable to me; but it should be made clear. We can't have a foundation policy that appears to contradict this, and if this is the standard we are going to follow it should be written down. There is a difference between having a disorder and acting on it. The former is of course legal.

It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. Fred

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg <jake(a)jakewartenberg.com> wrote: What? Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles? Change it how? When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that says "Are you a paedophile: YES/NO" and they can click through?

Andre Engels wrote: Fred Bauder replied: By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After all, wikis (and Wikipedia in particular) are widely criticised because the ability of "anyone" to edit sometimes leads to inaccuracies and other undesirable content. But of course, we mustn't do that (despite the fact that it would rectify a flaw that leads to disrepute), because it would fundamentally alter the wikis' nature in an unacceptable manner. This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with? Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported to be).

Bod Notbod wrote: I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.

Bod Notbod wrote: I agree. When users edit the wikis to reflect pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything) agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether they've provided advance indication that such an issue might arise). There's a world of difference between the block rationale "you edited badly" and the block rationale "you didn't edit badly, but you're a bad person." We stand to draw more negative attention to ourselves by deeming certain people "bad" than by allowing said users to edit under the same rules as everyone else.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote: What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics? Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality. In many cases, we _do_ know the personality involved. In this case, the block was endorsed by the English Arbitration Committee, and the blocked user has the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Just this year a pro-zoophilia person appeaed a ban, and the Arbitration Committee agreed to unban them if they agreed to not edit zoophilia topics. The person declined. In regards to paedophiles, there are a lot of occupations that _require_ people to report suspicious activity to law enforcement. It is literally not safe for paedophiles to exhibit signs of paedophilia activism or indulgence. Wikipedia is a public space. -- John Vandenberg

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which policy? If someone inserts a sentence into an article without including a reliable source, have they broken policy? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pa… Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one.

Your "understanding...that the user in question did not edit inappropriately" appears to be incorrect.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote: Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally. With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say one way or the other, especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked.

Anthony wrote: Okay, but I don't see the relevance. As far as I know, there has been no assertion that the user has edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia (and in fact, edits to pedophilia-related articles were examined and found to be neutral). Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing." Virtually all of them are the creation of since-deleted redirects and disambiguation pages. I recall the massive disruption that they caused (and Tyciol's stubborn insistence that the community was wrong about their harmfulness) and view this as a much stronger rationale for a ban than what is currently under discussion.

I wrote: Anthony replied: It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to participate.

An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case. If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which established his identity. But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. Fred

(My last message incorrectly insinuates Nihonjoe himself is a paedophile, due to momentary confusion when I was writing it. Disregarding that, my arguments remain.) -- Yours cordially, Jesse (Pathoschild) On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild) <pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago. Basically it says don't discuss issues regarding pedophilia activists on-wiki; send everything to the Arbitration Committee. This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban appeals privately. No, we assume good faith. Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is editing, we don't know it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. Pedophilia is different, but not different from Charlie Manson. What they have in common is seductive power which may be combined with illegal activity. This is reflected in the public opprobrium which results. Anonymous editing offers ample opportunities for drama. As we don't know who many people are, sketchy allegations "outing" one or another user can easily gain traction, particularly on external sites. Fred

On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote: The obvious difference here being this was a ban of IP addresses owned by a particular organization, not the people behind it -- the editors of the CoS are welcome to edit from their homes or anywhere EXCEPT the IP addresses that were disrupting the project. An IP address is not a point of view. -Dan

I wrote: Fred Bauder replied: Please provide a link. Does it also say that known pedophiles are to be banned on-sight (irrespective of their on-wiki activities)? Such a procedural policy falls within the ArbCom's authority. An outright ban on editing by known pedophiles does not. To your knowledge, has the latter been instituted? Except with pedophiles? You just suggested that the ArbCom conduct an investigation to rule out a behavior that has not been alleged. Right, and there is no dispute that "aggressive POV pushers" should be banned. Whether that POV is pro-pedophilia, pro-Nazism, pro-mainstream political position, or pro-anything (or anti-anything, for that matter), such conduct is unacceptable. We're discussing the practice of banning pedophiles who have *not* engaged in such on-wiki behavior.

The subject is "Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy". I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor happened to be a pedophile. This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking pedophiles on sight. Jesse mentioned "the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good". I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia editor, to be a bit far-fetched. (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being a pedophile. I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side on the issue of whether or not there's "anything wrong with that". Of those three, I think neo-Nazi is the most closely analogous, and I don't see why they should be allowed in Wikipedia either. As for "murderer" and "rapist", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If someone was convicted of murder 20 years ago and they are now out having served their time, I don't think this sets a precedent that we can ban them. On the other hand, if someone posts to message boards bragging about how they like to rape people, but that rape is legal in their country, I don't see any problem with banning them from Wikipedia.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote: A perfectly productive pedophile editor. I don't see anything unjust about treating someone differently because they're a pedophile. Perhaps you're taking me out of context, then. In the case in point (and in fact I believe all the cases where pedophiles were blocked), the person was caught effectively bragging about being a pedophile, and it's hard to see how one would get caught without essentially doing just that. Pedophiles are not "particular societal classes", and it's ridiculous that you'd regard them as such. I don't. What I equate with a lack of willingness to judge pedophiles as "wrong" is when someone refers to a such a ban with a comment that "We should not judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find them".

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote: No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though. No. I *am* saying that a degree of collateral damage (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, and acceptable. But I'm also saying that this has nothing whatsoever to do with "justice". Yes, if you ignore the context in which I said it, of which my footnote was part. Yes. And it's more than just a suspicion. Many Wikipedians on this mailing list have said things which have brought me to this conclusion, but on and off the list. I could start naming names, but that'd probably get me into trouble. The part about not judging them, and the referring to pedophilia as an "opinion".

George William Herbert wrote: If the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has created a policy prohibiting editing by all known pedophiles, I believe that it has overstepped its bounds. (I say "if" because I have not yet received a response to my question of whether the ArbCom has enacted such a policy.) Such an issue is a Foundation-level matter. I believe that the Foundation should intervene, at least to the extent of questioning the ArbCom and fully ascertaining the nature of this very murky situation. (I realize that there might be sensitive details to which the general community should not be privy.)

I wrote: Anthony replied: Please elaborate. To clarify, assuming that the aforementioned collateral damage can be prevented, do you believe that pedophiles who are productive editors should be permitted to edit? Regardless, please explain why we shouldn't simply ban unproductive/disruptive editors (irrespective of whether we know them to be pedophiles). That context simply wasn't stated. But okay, I accept that you were referring to a situation in which someone boasts about his/her pedophilia. What, in your assessment, is the proper course of action when it's discovered that an editor has made a public statement along the lines of the above example? I'll reiterate that I don't view the distinction as relevant, but I'm curious as to what you think. Then it probably is best that you simply remain silent on the issue (rather than implying that opposition to your stance reflects approval of pedophilia). That means that it isn't our place to pass judgement (in the judicial sense), _in spite of_ how we personally view one's actions. It does *not* mean that we lack such a personal view. An "appalling" opinion. Construing this as a lack of disapproval is rubbish.

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. Why not simply ban those whose edits reflect advocacy (of any kind)? To me, the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that they _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable. 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. My point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them. However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration. I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread. Are you suggesting that editing topics related to children (a vague description) somehow enables pedophiles to access children? 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? There was no other reason to mention such a thing. And besides, you come right out and say it in the next sentence... Whose is? Is mine? Not an actual court of law, but the Wikimedia equivalent (in this instance, a committee convening to deliberate and render a verdict). Obviously, the determination that someone has done something "appalling" is a personal judgement, so it can't refer to that. It means that we set aside our personal opinions and decline to judge him/her as one judges someone on trial. Appalling: "causing dismay or horror" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appalling Opinion: "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion Appalling opinion: "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal causing dismay or horror" Contextual application: "Person X's attitude regarding pedophilia causes me dismay and horror, but I don't regard this as a valid reason to consider barring his/her participation in the project."

Gerard Meijssen wrote: To what are you referring? I'm not sure that we're on the same page. If you thought that I was challenging the ArbCom's very existence, you misunderstood. Obviously, I have some serious concerns regarding the procedures that have/haven't been followed, but I fully recognize the ArbCom's importance.

To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage. We're too patient with edit warriors and the like, but if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken. 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). 1. Suppose that the Hindi Wikipedia voted to ban Pakistani editors. Would that be acceptable? (Note that I'm not remotely equating the exclusion of pedophiles with the exclusion of a nationality; I'm addressing your claim that "we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason.") 2. Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was reached to ban all known pedophiles from editing. And we base this assessment on past behavior, not hunches. Except, evidently, with pedophiles. Pragmatically, it strikes me as a realistic compromise. There obviously are many users who oppose editing by pedophiles, and I believe that this would address one of the main issues (the facilitation of private communication, potentially with children). I don't believe that pedophiles are likely to seek out victims via a wiki (as there are numerous online and offline fora that are far better for making contact with people in a particular geographic area), but I understand why the concern exists. You're welcome to respond to those posts. Otherwise, we can simply agree to disagree. I certainly agree that pedophiles possess highly abnormal ideas on the subject, but that doesn't preclude them from contributing to relevant encyclopedia articles in a rational manner. By all accounts that I've seen, the editor in question did precisely that. Pedophilia-related articles are heavily monitored, and inappropriate edits (by pedophiles or anyone else) are reverted more promptly than in the majority of articles. No, I condemn pedophilia. I'm just curious as to the basis of your above claim. Our condemnation of pedophiles (not pedophilia, mind you, as we certainly mustn't allow any such activities to be promoted on our wikis). The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William Herbert.

George William Herbert wrote: I'm well aware. In fact, I produced a children's video about Internet predators for my county's public library and elementary schools. My point is that some measures commonly taken in physical space are ineffective (and possibly even detrimental) in cyberspace.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote: Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and to ban no one. 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. Pedophile editors already have plenty of reasons to not identify themselves as such. It's only the most bold and/or irrational ones that are going to do it anyway. I don't think they're going to change just because what they're doing is bannable. In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors fully expect to eventually be banned - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them. And looking at the edits of whatshisname, I think he fits in that category. I'll bring it up again - this wasn't his first block, or even his first indefinite block. And according to Ryan, and I assume the Arb Com checked this, "he's been banned from quite a few other sites for the way he talks about his pedophilia (including LiveJournal for creating the 'childlove community')". Had he not been blocked indefinitely by Ryan for being a pedophile, I'm fairly certain he would have been blocked by someone else for some other reason, possibly related to pedophilia, possibly not. And you yourself claimed, in the paragraph directly prior to this one, that "if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken". So which is it? No. I see a difference between whether or not you have the right to do something, and whether or not it's in your best interest to do so. When you asked me whether or not banning Pakistani editors is "acceptable", I answered based on the latter. Had you asked whether or not the Hindi Wikipedia had a right to ban Pakistani editors, well, I would have responded with "sure, they have that right, until the WMF decides to take it away from them". I don't foresee the WMF stepping in and forcing us to unban pedophiles. That isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen, because banning pedophiles, unlike banning Pakistanis, is the right thing to do. We're having one of them right now, I guess. And so far, no one has been bold enough to try to overturn the de facto ban. Try unblocking one of the blocked pedophiles, if you'd like. I don't particularly like this sort of mob rule. It often makes the wrong decisions, even if in this case, it's making the right one (I'll save us the trouble and respond for you with your "I don't think it is" and my "that's not my problem"). I'd much prefer the WMF to step in and lay down the rules. But I've long ago given up hope of anything sensible like that happening. No, pedophiles are assessed based on their past behavior as well. If whatshisname didn't post all over the Internet bragging about being a pedophile, he never would have been banned (for being a pedophile, anyway). Perhaps by "behavior" you mean "on-wiki behavior". But handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless. It treats Wikipedia like a game, and only promotes trolling. Why are you willing to be pragmatic when it comes to blocking e-mail, but not when it comes to blocking editing? How about "collaborating with children"?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> 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? Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by association? -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

No, you asked me to address your point that <insert untrue statement>. I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true. I only know of one such case, and in that case, yes, I think he clearly expected to eventually be banned. I'm not including the pedophiles who make no public on-Internet mentions of their pedophilia. No. 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. You claim to agree with me that pedophiles are bad people. So really I find it hard to see how you don't get this. We banned him before he did. This is a good thing. The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked)" 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. We've come to a consensus, as a community, that "some sort of ArbCom rulings" are to be followed. I'm not sure where the discussion was in which that consensus was reached - there probably wasn't one - but there you go. Handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless. I never claimed anything would prevent all on-wiki misconduct. I merely claim that banning self-identified pedophiles helps the project more than it harms it. So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be "unconscionable" if they are effective? 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? They're ineffective on Wikipedia, perhaps. But that's because Wikipedia chooses not to implement effective measures to enforce bans. My wife teaches high school online (ages 14-18 for those of you unfamiliar with the US school systems). Do you think her employer is justified in firing someone who is found to be a self-admitted pedophile? What about the online middle school (ages 11-14) or online elementary school (ages 6-11)? These are real schools that exist "in cyberspace", and I sure hope they have policies banning pedophiles.

Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause trouble. Why does it matter whether or not they identify themselves as pedophiles, if you're not allowed to use that information against them? If you're suggesting that when we find someone who has self-identified as a pedophile (or a different site, as otherwise it would be on-wiki behavior), instead of blocking them we secretly monitor their contributions waiting for the proper moment to pounce, well, I say good luck with that. It just isn't going to happen. The secret will quickly get out, and "pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia", or the monitoring won't be done. But then, according to you, "if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken". So then, according to you (I don't agree with this assertion), it *doesn't matter* if pedophiles don't disclose their pedophilia. Countless users are indefinitely blocked? I guess you can't count very high. I wouldn't lump his behavior in with pedophilia, but I would lump it in with his behavior of publicly revealing that he is a pedophile (as though there's nothing wrong with that). He did things that he knew would piss everybody off, most likely with the explicit intention of pissing them off. If I'm wrong about his intention, then he's truly clueless. Either way, good riddance. Perhaps that's what you're discussing. I'm discussing both. In fact, I'm saying you can't separate the two, or if you can it's a 1 in 1000 phenomenon, and we can afford to lose that 1 in 1000 along with the other 999. For "mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users"? How are you not contradicting yourself? I presented you with a "cyberspace" example - a virtual school. Is it wrong to ban pedophiles from interacting with children in a virtual school? Or do you at least agree that *that* makes sense?

Anthony wrote: And what do you believe is likely to occur when these pedophiles are blocked "before they can cause trouble"? We have no inherent justification to report their IP addresses to their ISPs or law enforcement agencies, so their accounts are merely blocked. And then what do they do? Leave? Perhaps. But the ones intent on actually using Wikipedia to recruit victims (assuming that they exist) probably will simply register new accounts (via different IP addresses, if need be), this time being careful to avoid divulging any information connecting pedophilia with their new accounts. At Wikipedia (and probably other wikis), users often monitor each other's edits because of minor (and even downright silly) disputes. You don't think that anyone would be interested in monitoring a known pedophile's edits? You think that if Tyciol hadn't been blocked, no one would be watching his every on-wiki move? Then there's the e-mail issue, which we've discussed. It certainly is possible that an editor exposed as a pedophile will abandon that account. How does such an outcome meaningfully differ from a ban? 1. Please cite instances of pro-pedophilia editing that was tolerated for a substantial period of time. 2. In terms of content edits, it probably doesn't matter very much. I don't know about you, but I view the possibility of a pedophile using a Wikimedia site to contact potential victims as a much scarier scenario. I don't believe that it's terribly likely (because many far easier methods are readily available), but if it were to occur, it would be a hell of a lot worse than the brief appearance of pro-pedophilia propaganda in a wiki. Accounts are indefinitely blocked extremely often. But I was referring to the stark contrast between the edits' nature and pedophilia. The only thing remotely extraordinary about Tyciol's problematic edits was their sheer quantity. He struck me as quite clueless, indeed. As noted above, I mean that the individual infractions were mundane (and most would not even have been viewed as "infractions" on their own). Their quantity, conversely, was ridiculous (and this resulted in a great deal of cleanup work for other editors). But even the combined effect doesn't approach the level of child abuse. I do agree that it makes sense, as that's a situation in which an identified (and traceable) adult is pointedly in a position of authority and direct influence over children. Please pay particular attention to the "identified (and traceable)" part.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The entire aim of "pedophile advocacy" is to get non-pedophiles to view pedophilia as a "life style choice" or something akin to "a sexual orientation". It's not. The practice of pedophilia is illegal pretty much everywhere. If we allow self-identified pedophiles to edit our projects, particularly those who insist on proclaiming this proclivity on-wiki - we are permitting & even facilitating pedophile advocacy. IMHO & FWIW, Beth (Versageek) wiki(a)versageek.com

Let me make a few basic points here. 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they should be blocked or not. 3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at best a purely theoretical one. 4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not happen. Newyorkbrad

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM, David Levy &lt;lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I can't believe nobody's told a wikipaedophile joke yet. I went to the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago, watched a stand up comedian, and he asked "does anyone know this fact?" I said "yes, I do". He said "how come?" I said, "I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia" and the whole audience laughed and the comedian said "I thought you were going down a dangerous path there". I have no idea why we're discussing this. There can't be many paedophile editors and the ones that exist should be dealt with by the police. We're a community. Asking whether we should be concerned about paedophiles within our community is like walking into a pub and wondering who abuses children.

Bod Notbod wrote: Just as a point of interest, do we block people currently incarcerated from editing? I have a vague recollection that one of the most voluminous contributors to the original edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, was actually a prisoner... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy &lt;lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content. There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists, Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our reputation or integrity of content. Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do. There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings. Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act. We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project. I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others."I don't like it" is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on suspect grounds. ________________________________ From: George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 4:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy &lt;lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content. There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists, Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our reputation or integrity of content. Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do. There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings. Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act. We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project. I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I am going by the text. The Credit Card Usage Policy and the Pluralism, Internationalism, and Diversity Policy also carry that boilerplate, but they very clearly do not apply to the projects. Indeed, the Code of Conduct Policy specifically states that it not a policy for community members. Still, I agree with you that an official statement would be welcome. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jake Wartenberg &lt;jake(a)jakewartenberg.com&gt;wrote;wrote: