[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> The secret will quickly get out, and "pedophile editors will become less likely to
> disclose their pedophilia", or the monitoring won't be done.

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?

> 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.

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.

> > 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?

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.

> 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.

He struck me as quite clueless, indeed.

> > 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?

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 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?

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.