[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage.

Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
to ban no one.

> 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.

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?

> 1. Suppose that the Hindi Wikipedia voted to ban Pakistani editors.
> Would that be acceptable?

No.

> (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.")

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.

> 2. Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was
> reached to ban all known pedophiles from editing.

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.

>> And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in
>> the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone.
>
> And we base this assessment on past behavior, not hunches.  Except,
> evidently, with pedophiles.

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.

>> > 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?
>
> Pragmatically, it strikes me as a realistic compromise.

Why are you willing to be pragmatic when it comes to blocking e-mail,
but not when it comes to blocking editing?

>> 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.
>
> The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
> space with cyberspace.

How about "collaborating with children"?