[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[Ned Scott]

This discussion involves all of us. Your interpretation of "no pedo  
userbox = never talk about the issue" is without weight. We do not  
allow people to promote pedophilia, that is a separate issue than an  
admin (yourself) inappropriately banning a user for their personal  
beliefs. Just because it happens to be a related issue does not mean  
you have the right to silence discussion in hopes of killing it. I'm  
sorry that this specific issue deals with a topic no one wants to  
touch with a 10 foot pole, but your paranoia that such a discussion is  
harmful to Wikipedia, and can only be discussed with the arbcom is  
absurd.

If it's talked about in the open, more people will see that you have  
blocked someone for their personal beliefs, and not for their actions.  
That is something that can and will eventually slide into other  
issues, completely unrelated to pedophilia. Wikipedians, all  
Wikipedians, have the fundamental right, given to them by Foundation  
policy, to edit Wikipedia regardless of their personal beliefs. This  
is an alarming issue that people should be very upset about. It's very  
unfortunate that it happens to deal with an issue that causes people  
to act out of emotion, rather than logic. For the sake of Wikipedia's  
basic principals, do try to be objective.

-- Ned Scott

On Dec 25, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Your comment is here forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Please  
> direct
> all future correspondence to them. Please discontinue agitation on
> Wikipedia and on the mailing list.
>
> Fred
>
>> And this user did no such thing. Not only that, but seems to be
>> unaware that the statement made on their user page was a violation of
>> anything. Even after reading the arbcom case, I don't see how this
>> text that Zanthalon wrote could be considered something to be banned
>> over:
>>
>> "Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on
>> pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since
>> I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific. I would stress,
>> however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law
>> or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under
>> the statutory age of consent.
>> I do not have a great deal of time to devote to Wikipedia, so most of
>> it up until now has been devoted to pedophilia-related articles.
>> Hopefully in the future, I will be able to spend more time on other
>> articles as well."
>>
>> Why did you not just delete the userpage, or blank that section? Your
>> actions are that of an overzealous right winged mother who just found
>> out that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood. You have judged
>> this user based on their personal beliefs, and not their actions.  
>> This
>> is entirely inappropriate, and needs to be undone.
>>
>> Might I note that users who have -created- pro-pedophile userboxes
>> have not been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. One recent creator
>> has never been banned for those actions, in fact. The ban of  
>> Zanthalon
>> is completely unjust, and violates the blocking policy, the arbcom
>> case, and the Foundation's policy on discrimination.
>>
>> -- Ned Scott
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported  
>>>> during
>>>> that case
>>>> Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/
>>>> Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all
>>>>
>>> As I said there:
>>>
>>> "we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious
>>> way."
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>