[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).
>
> 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."]

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.

>> 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).

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.

> We're
> discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether
> this particular editor was an asset to the community.

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.

> (As I noted, if
> it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the
> pedophilia issue came to light.)

For "mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users"?
How are you not contradicting yourself?

>> 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.

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?