[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> 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.
>   
One could hardly say that "reasonable expectation" is an objective 
criterion.  Somebody has to make that judgement, and if the person who 
makes the judgement is too quick to act he's bound to make trouble.  
Saying that the apparent offender must "respect the right of the 
community", but must be punished even if there is "no current harmful 
activity" describes a community that is capricious in the application of 
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.
>   
How do you determine that likelihood?  Likelihood is far from being a 
certainty.
> 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.
>   
Even if abusive checkusering is not in fact happening this kind of 
attitude fans the flames of opinion that it is happening,  Having the 
same interests, even distasteful ones, alone should not be a criterion 
for investigating a person.
> 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.
You are still requiring the person to grovel, and lose face and 
dignity.  The most important evidence is that he has avoided bad 
behaviour for a substantial time.  Acknowledge that quietly and 
discretely rather than starting a public drama that gets a lot of other 
people wasting their time too. 

Ec