[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Lodewijk]

Although I do think that at the end of the day, it might be better for
the community of editors to keep this kind of disruptive people
blocked, I would like to counter some of the arguments I have heard in
this discussion.

"danger to our children" - come on.. If he (I assume it is a he?)
wants to get in touch with children, there are many more, much more
effective fora which provide less obvious evidence in case anything
would happen. There are way too many eye balls around to watch if you
do anything.

"According to US law..." someone compared this situation to US law,
and assumed this would be the same all over the world. I don't think
this is the case. In general, I have the feeling this discussion is
getting somewhat US-centric. US law is here only relevant when it has
an impact through the WMF. Where I come from, a person can not even be
forbidden easily to get back to his old home once he sat out his
sentence. Again this is similar to the principle of innocent till
proven/convicted discussion I guess.

"no matter what their opinion..." Andre Engels suggested that because
of NPOV it is important to admit this kind of people. I don't think
that this would or should be the case. Wikipedia does not have to be
all inclusive, because if one specific person scares away more people,
that would be a valid reason to consider banning that person. The
collateral damage would be too large. I think that argument flies in
this discussion. However, in an ideal world I do agree with you.

"appeal" - someone said something that highly surprised me.
Apparently, the AC of enwiki 'endorsed' the blockade, but still you
consider an appeal realistic? I'm sorry, but I would find the chance
of honest ruling very low, nearing zero, in case if that same group of
judges first endorsed the fact they have to judge... Personally, I
feel that AC should never "endorse" stuff without it being a case
submitted to them. But that might be more a side discussion.

"There is no slippery slope" - I don't have the feeling there really
is no slippery slope here. Of course there is. As soon as you start
excluding one group of people for what they are, you will start
excluding others, too. So this is more of a high level discussion:
should we exclude people who cause significant disturbance and make
other people less active in our current community? Pedophiles are just
one example, and not even such an extreme one. A convicted nazi, a
well known mass murderer, a high profile satanist, the pope, all do
they have a profile that could hold for similar arguments (yes, there
are people who wouldn't let their children near the pope). So yes,
there is a slippery slope. This is no disaster, as long as we are fair
enough to recognize it, and beware very carefully not to go down more
then we actually want to.

Lodewijk

2009/11/29, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com>:
> I wrote:
>
>> > Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing."
>
> Anthony replied:
>
>> Fortunately, that's not my problem.
>
> It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to
> participate.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>