[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

> Bad editors are often allowed to edit for years before they finally get
> indefinitely banned.  I'm not getting into specific details, that's far
> outside the scope of this thread.  Even this comment is pushing it.

I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and
I also agree that this is not germane to the discussion.

> Seriously, if we could shut off their ability to use
> [[Special:EmailUser]], and then have someone examine their every
> contribution with a fine-toothed comb, and then ban them at the first
> sight of anything approaching "pedophile advocacy", maybe.  But that's a
> lot of work for very little benefit.  Better to just ban them
> categorically.

Why not simply ban those whose edits reflect advocacy (of any kind)?
To me, the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that
they _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable.

And I can think of many groups more likely than pedophiles to perform
edits reflecting advocacy.  But these people aren't near-universally
abhorred, so we wouldn't think of barring their participation.  My
point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same
terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them.

However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail
function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration.

> There's also the issue of negative publicity.

I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread.

> > What, in your assessment, is the proper course of action when it's
> > discovered that an editor has made a public statement along the lines
> > of the above example?

> I don't know.  I certainly wouldn't complain if they were banned anyway.
> But maybe they could be given some sort of supervised editing permission,
> to edit topics wholly unrelated to children and pedophilia, of course.

Are you suggesting that editing topics related to children (a vague
description) somehow enables pedophiles to access children?

I'm even more puzzled by the suggestion that they be barred from
editing articles related to pedophilia.  Provided that their edits
don't reflect a pro-pedophilia bias, what's the problem?

> > Then it probably is best that you simply remain silent on the issue
> > (rather than implying that opposition to your stance reflects approval
> > of pedophilia).

> I never made that implication, though.

There was no other reason to mention such a thing.  And besides, you
come right out and say it in the next sentence...

> I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of
> pedophilia, but not everyone's.

Whose is?  Is mine?

> > > > What part of someone finding an opinion "appalling" do you
> > > > associate with the absence of disapproval?

> > > The part about not judging them,

> > That means that it isn't our place to pass judgement (in the judicial
> > sense), _in spite of_ how we personally view one's actions.  It does
> > *not* mean that we lack such a personal view.

> In the judicial sense?  As in court of law type stuff?  I don't think
> that's what was meant.

Not an actual court of law, but the Wikimedia equivalent (in this
instance, a committee convening to deliberate and render a verdict).
Obviously, the determination that someone has done something
"appalling" is a personal judgement, so it can't refer to that.  It
means that we set aside our personal opinions and decline to judge
him/her as one judges someone on trial.

> If you take "appalling" to imply judgment as (morally) wrong, then
> "appalling opinion" is a contradiction in terms.  The word "opinion"
> means there is no right or wrong choice.  If I had to try to parse
> "appalling opinion", I'd guess it means "something which isn't right
> or wrong, but which I personally find distasteful".

Appalling: "causing dismay or horror"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appalling

Opinion: "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

Appalling opinion: "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal causing
dismay or horror"

Contextual application: "Person X's attitude regarding pedophilia
causes me dismay and horror, but I don't regard this as a valid reason
to consider barring his/her participation in the project."