[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

George Herbert wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2007 3:36 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 24/12/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>       
>>>> "[P]aedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is quite
>>>> meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as
>>>> paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We
>>>> can't ban thought, only action.
>>>>         
>>> The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any
>>> number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action)
>>> to banned trolls.
>>>
>>> We don't have to say so explicitly.  Nobody's going to laugh at us
>>> because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading
>>> minds.  A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms
>>> with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one
>>> which acknowledges the grey area.
>>>       
>> Introducing a ban on thought would be a new precedent for us (and
>> largely unenforceable) and it is frankly not our business. If we ban
>> paedophiles, it becomes our responsibility to ensure none of the
>> editors are paedophiles (an impossible). If we make it our
>> responsibility to ensure paedophiles do not edit, it will be our fault
>> if the media discovers that some of our editors are.
>>
>> IMO, our policies should be limited to what we can control - no
>> paedophilia-related userboxes, advertising and that kind of thing.
>> Anything beyond that (policy governing the thought processes of our
>> editors) strikes me as a knee-jerk, emotive reaction (à la the tabloid
>> press).
>>     
> Hypothetical:
>
> Banned user X reappears on Wikipedia with spanking new account, does
> not identify themselves at all, proceeds to edit in a completely
> appropriate manner and not troll and not identify themselves by edit
> patterns etc.
>
> Q: Are they still banned?
>
> A: Yes.  If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to
> block evasion.
>
> Their behavior with the new account can be spotlessly positive and
> otherwise policy compliant, and they're still banned.  We just may not
> have caught them (yet, or ever).
Sounds like a policy to have rules trump common sense.  If the new 
account continues to behave sensibly there should be absolutely no need 
to impose further punitive actions.  If we have succeeded in getting 
someone to play nice the original disciplinary action has accomplished 
its aims.  Further blocking without genuine cause is only for admins who 
like to play power games.

Ec