[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> > Again, I wish to read this policy.  Where is it published?  And how was
> > it established?  Did the ArbCom itself author it?

Fred Bauder replied:

> It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the
> Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago.

Please provide a link.

> Basically it says don't discuss issues regarding pedophilia activists
> on-wiki; send everything to the Arbitration Committee.

Does it also say that known pedophiles are to be banned on-sight
(irrespective of their on-wiki activities)?

> This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban appeals privately.

Such a procedural policy falls within the ArbCom's authority.  An
outright ban on editing by known pedophiles does not.  To your
knowledge, has the latter been instituted?

> > > If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist
> > > activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which
> > > established his identity.

> > There has been no _assertion_ of activist activity on the wiki.  Shall
> > we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their
> > editing records?

> No, we assume good faith.

Except with pedophiles?  You just suggested that the ArbCom conduct an
investigation to rule out a behavior that has not been alleged.

> Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is editing, we don't know
> it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't
> usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.

Right, and there is no dispute that "aggressive POV pushers" should be
banned.  Whether that POV is pro-pedophilia, pro-Nazism,
pro-mainstream political position, or pro-anything (or anti-anything,
for that matter), such conduct is unacceptable.

We're discussing the practice of banning pedophiles who have *not*
engaged in such on-wiki behavior.