[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:35 PM 12/24/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

> > Q: Are they still banned?
> >
> > A: Yes.  If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to
> > block evasion.
>
>This is a horrible idea (not just for pedophiles, but for anyone 
>permabanned for any reason).
>
>If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, 
>then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user, 
>if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?

Well, it's punitive, in a way, but it's also preventative. A 
permanent ban is issued, in theory, because a judgement has been made 
that the user is quite likely to abuse the editing privilege again. 
If a user will not respect the right of the community, through its 
chosen process (or, alternatively, the owner, WMF, through its chosen 
process), to restrict access, even if there is no current harmful 
activity, there is, supposedly, a reasonable expectation that the 
user will again be tempted to violate policy.

That is, that the user violates a ban is evidence that the user is 
likely to violate other policies, and, in the case described, merely 
has not done so yet.

In practice, the only socks of banned users that get caught this way 
are those of banned users who have *really* offended the community, 
such that those who might seem to have the same interests can get 
checkusered. I'm not sure if this is happening, but it seems to me 
from looking over checkuser cases, that socks *which were not the 
target of complaints* are getting caught. Presumably, the checkuser 
is looking at known IP for the banned user and perhaps other 
evidence, and sees new accounts matching. Some of these accounts, as 
far as I can tell, never edited (I can't see deleted edits, to be 
sure). I don't think it is policy to routinely check for permanent 
ban violations.

So if, in fact, a permabanned user was not so egregious that editors 
are suspecting him under every bed, the likelihood of a new account 
that keeps its nose clean getting caught is fairly low, if I'm 
correct; and I suspect that if a user actually did come back and 
edited cleanly for a substantial time, then was caught up in some 
checkuser probe without actually having done anything, there might be 
some possibility of appeal. "Yes, I was BadPuppetMaster, but I've 
seen the error of my ways, I learned my lesson, and I'd really like 
to continue to contribute to the project, if you will permit." Not 
very likely, though.