[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Anthony]

>> > 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 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
>
> Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia?

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.

>> - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them.
>
> How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with?

No.

>> 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 I'll once again note that his past blocks had nothing to do with
> pedophilia and have no connection to this ban.

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.

>> 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')".
>
> There is no assertion that he engaged in any comparable conduct at Wikipedia.

We banned him before he did.  This is a good thing.

>> 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?
>
> To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring?

The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that
problematic activities will be overlooked)"

>> 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".
>
> 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.

>> > 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.
>
> We have more than a de facto ban; we have some sort of ArbCom ruling.
> You and I both know that it's foolhardy, futile and disruptive to defy
> such a decision.

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.

>> 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.
>
> I don't mean "on-wiki behavior," but I do mean "behavior directly
> related to the wikis."

Handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless.

> You (and others) take this a step further by assuming that
> self-identified pedophiles will commit on-wiki misconduct (or that the
> likelihood is high enough to treat it as a certainty) and that
> permanently blocking their accounts will prevent this.

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.

> Don't think
> for a moment that I fail to understand that line of thinking.  I would
> be lying if I claimed that the idea of blocking pedophiles on-sight
> was devoid of logic.
>
> But for reasons that I've explained, I regard such an approach as
> unfair and ineffectual.  And truth be told, if I only saw it as
> unfair, I wouldn't complain; I view our wikis' safety and integrity as
> infinitely more important than the manner in which a
> productively-editing pedophile is treated.  But because I also view
> the approach as ineffectual, I see nothing to offset the unfairness.

So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be
"unconscionable" if they are effective?

>> > The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
>> > space with cyberspace.
>
>> How about "collaborating with children"?
>
> That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology.

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?

> As I explained to George, my point is that some measures commonly taken in physical space are
> ineffective in cyberspace.

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.