[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> > > > 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 expressed my opinion that banning all self-identified pedophiles is
ineffectual.  I then misinterpreted your response to mean that if this
were true, we wouldn't be doing it.

Upon further rumination, I now believe that your point was that if
we'd convinced all pedophile editors to not publicly disclose their
pedophilia, there would be no self-identified pedophiles for us to ban
(rendering this discussion moot).  Do I now understand correctly?

I haven't presented such a scenario.  I believe that a natural
consequence of the continual bans is that over time, pedophile editors
will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia.  This means that
_fewer_ pedophiles will do so, not that none will (and not that the
full effect is instantaneous).

[Incidentally, "entourages" was a typo for "encourages."]

> 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.

The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort
exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is
ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia).

And again, those issues had _nothing_ to do with the ban (which would
have occurred even if the user had a spotless editing record).  We're
discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether
this particular editor was an asset to the community.  (As I noted, if
it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the
pedophilia issue came to light.)

> > To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring?
>
> The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that
> problematic activities will be overlooked)"

How does that pertain to the editor in question?

> > 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.

I don't know whether you're correct or incorrect, but the latter is my
sincere hope.

> We've come to a consensus, as a community, that "some sort of ArbCom
> rulings" are to be followed.

1. Please don't quote me out of context.  The above implies that I
seek to belittle the ArbCom, and that isn't so.  I referred to "some
sort of ArbCom ruling" because the precise nature of the decision is
unclear.  Contextually, I was stating that the ruling should *not* be
ignored.

2. The ArbCom is a consensus-backed body, but its power is far from
limitless, and there absolutely is no consensus that its actions
should never be questioned.

I seek to determine the nature and basis of the policy that the ArbCom
is purported to have instituted.  Only then would it be appropriate
for the community to evaluate whether the committee acted within its
authority.

There is no assertion that the ArbCom's rulings should not be followed.

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

No.  I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I believe that
a grey solution is vastly preferable to the realistic alternative.

> 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?

I regard the statement as overly broad; it is applicable to both
physical space and cyberspace, and I believe that some procedures
effective in the former are impractical in the latter.