>> > Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles >> > from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify >> > themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic >> > activities will be overlooked). > >> If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified >> pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole >> conversation is pointless. > > So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence?
No, you asked me to address your point that <insert untrue statement>. I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true. >> I don't think they're going to change just because what they're doing is >> bannable. In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors >> fully expect to eventually be banned > > Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia? I only know of one such case, and in that case, yes, I think he clearly expected to eventually be banned. I'm not including the pedophiles who make no public on-Internet mentions of their pedophilia. >> - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them. > > How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with? No. >> And looking at the edits of whatshisname, I think he fits in that >> category. I'll bring it up again - this wasn't his first block, or even >> his first indefinite block. > > And I'll once again note that his past blocks had nothing to do with > pedophilia and have no connection to this ban. Both his pedophilia (or claims of pedophilia) and his behavior which led to his first indefinite block are results of his character. I see no reason to wait for the latter when we already know the former. You claim to agree with me that pedophiles are bad people. So really I find it hard to see how you don't get this. >> And according to Ryan, and I assume the Arb Com checked this, "he's been >> banned from quite a few other sites for the way he talks about his >> pedophilia (including LiveJournal for creating the 'childlove >> community')". > > There is no assertion that he engaged in any comparable conduct at Wikipedia. We banned him before he did. This is a good thing. >> And you yourself claimed, in the paragraph directly prior to this one, >> that "if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be >> tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken". So which is it? > > To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring? The part in your comment "(thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked)" >> I see a difference between whether or not you have the right to do >> something, and whether or not it's in your best interest to do so. When >> you asked me whether or not banning Pakistani editors is "acceptable", I >> answered based on the latter. Had you asked whether or not the Hindi >> Wikipedia had a right to ban Pakistani editors, well, I would have >> responded with "sure, they have that right, until the WMF decides to take >> it away from them". > > To be clear, you're stating that while you would regard such an act as > inappropriate, you believe that the Hindi Wikipedia currently is > empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation to ban Pakistani editors if it > so chooses. Correct? I'm not completely familiar with the rules of the Hindi Wikipedia, but I assume they have a method of banning which doesn't involve petitioning the Wikimedia Foundation, so yes. >> > Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was reached to >> > ban all known pedophiles from editing. > >> We're having one of them right now, I guess. And so far, no one has been >> bold enough to try to overturn the de facto ban. >> >> Try unblocking one of the blocked pedophiles, if you'd like. > > We have more than a de facto ban; we have some sort of ArbCom ruling. > You and I both know that it's foolhardy, futile and disruptive to defy > such a decision. We've come to a consensus, as a community, that "some sort of ArbCom rulings" are to be followed. I'm not sure where the discussion was in which that consensus was reached - there probably wasn't one - but there you go. >> No, pedophiles are assessed based on their past behavior as well. If >> whatshisname didn't post all over the Internet bragging about being a >> pedophile, he never would have been banned (for being a pedophile, >> anyway). >> >> Perhaps by "behavior" you mean "on-wiki behavior". But handcuffing >> yourself with that rule is pointless. It treats Wikipedia like a game, >> and only promotes trolling. > > I don't mean "on-wiki behavior," but I do mean "behavior directly > related to the wikis." Handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless. > You (and others) take this a step further by assuming that > self-identified pedophiles will commit on-wiki misconduct (or that the > likelihood is high enough to treat it as a certainty) and that > permanently blocking their accounts will prevent this. I never claimed anything would prevent all on-wiki misconduct. I merely claim that banning self-identified pedophiles helps the project more than it harms it. > Don't think > for a moment that I fail to understand that line of thinking. I would > be lying if I claimed that the idea of blocking pedophiles on-sight > was devoid of logic. > > But for reasons that I've explained, I regard such an approach as > unfair and ineffectual. And truth be told, if I only saw it as > unfair, I wouldn't complain; I view our wikis' safety and integrity as > infinitely more important than the manner in which a > productively-editing pedophile is treated. But because I also view > the approach as ineffectual, I see nothing to offset the unfairness. So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be "unconscionable" if they are effective? >> > The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical >> > space with cyberspace. > >> How about "collaborating with children"? > > That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology. No, I don't see it as a quibble. I'm willing to modify my statement. "I agree that we shouldn't judge him/her as one judges someone on trial. Rather, we should judge him/her as one judges someone applying for a volunteer job, collaborating with children, creating an encyclopedia." Do you agree or disagree with that? > As I explained to George, my point is that some measures commonly taken in > physical space are > ineffective in cyberspace. They're ineffective on Wikipedia, perhaps. But that's because Wikipedia chooses not to implement effective measures to enforce bans. My wife teaches high school online (ages 14-18 for those of you unfamiliar with the US school systems). Do you think her employer is justified in firing someone who is found to be a self-admitted pedophile? What about the online middle school (ages 11-14) or online elementary school (ages 6-11)? These are real schools that exist "in cyberspace", and I sure hope they have policies banning pedophiles. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l