[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

John Vandenberg wrote:

> What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?

And edits the articles in accordance with policy?

> Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
> targets?  i.e. people that live in the same locality.

Are the edits in accordance with policy?

> In many cases, we _do_ know the personality involved.
> In this case, the block was endorsed by the English Arbitration
> Committee, and the blocked user has the right to appeal to the
> Arbitration Committee.
>
> Just this year a pro-zoophilia person appeaed a ban, and the
> Arbitration Committee agreed to unban them if they agreed to not edit
> zoophilia topics.  The person declined.

I'm unfamiliar with the details of that case.  If the individual was
editing the articles to insert pro-zoophilia bias, the proposed topic
ban was reasonable.

My understanding of the case that triggered this thread (and please
correct me if I'm mistaken) is that the user in question did not edit
inappropriately (and was blocked because he self-identified as a
pedophile on other websites).

> In regards to paedophiles, there are a lot of occupations that
> _require_ people to report suspicious activity to law enforcement.  It
> is literally not safe for paedophiles to exhibit signs of paedophilia
> activism or indulgence.
>
> Wikipedia is a public space.

If someone exhibits on-wiki "activism or indulgence," that's a different story.