Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
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). I believe that a natural consequence of the continual bans is that over time, pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia. This means that _fewer_ pedophiles will do so, not that none will (and not that the full effect is instantaneous). [Incidentally, entourages was a typo for encourages.] Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause trouble. Why does it matter whether or not they identify themselves as pedophiles, if you're not allowed to use that information against them? If you're suggesting that when we find someone who has self-identified as a pedophile (or a different site, as otherwise it would be on-wiki behavior), instead of blocking them we secretly monitor their contributions waiting for the proper moment to pounce, well, I say good luck with that. It just isn't going to happen. The secret will quickly get out, and pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia, or the monitoring won't be done. But then, according to you, if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken. So then, according to you (I don't agree with this assertion), it *doesn't matter* if pedophiles don't disclose their pedophilia. 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. The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia). Countless users are indefinitely blocked? I guess you can't count very high. I wouldn't lump his behavior in with pedophilia, but I would lump it in with his behavior of publicly revealing that he is a pedophile (as though there's nothing wrong with that). He did things that he knew would piss everybody off, most likely with the explicit intention of pissing them off. If I'm wrong about his intention, then he's truly clueless. Either way, good riddance. We're discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether this particular editor was an asset to the community. Perhaps that's what you're discussing. I'm discussing both. In fact, I'm saying you can't separate the two, or if you can it's a 1 in 1000 phenomenon, and we can afford to lose that 1 in 1000 along with the other 999. (As I noted, if it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the pedophilia issue came to light.) For mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users? How are you not contradicting yourself? 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? I regard the statement as overly broad; it is applicable to both physical space and cyberspace, and I believe that some procedures effective in the former are impractical in the latter. I presented you with a cyberspace example - a virtual school. Is it wrong to ban pedophiles from interacting with children in a virtual school? Or do you at least agree that *that* makes sense? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Hoi, For your information an article from Wired that I think may be relevant... http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/thousands-of-sex-offenders-booted-from-facebook-myspace/?utm_source=feedburner Thanks, GerardM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause trouble. And what do you believe is likely to occur when these pedophiles are blocked before they can cause trouble? We have no inherent justification to report their IP addresses to their ISPs or law enforcement agencies, so their accounts are merely blocked. And then what do they do? Leave? Perhaps. But the ones intent on actually using Wikipedia to recruit victims (assuming that they exist) probably will simply register new accounts (via different IP addresses, if need be), this time being careful to avoid divulging any information connecting pedophilia with their new accounts. Why does it matter whether or not they identify themselves as pedophiles, if you're not allowed to use that information against them? If you're suggesting that when we find someone who has self-identified as a pedophile (or a different site, as otherwise it would be on-wiki behavior), instead of blocking them we secretly monitor their contributions waiting for the proper moment to pounce, well, I say good luck with that. It just isn't going to happen. At Wikipedia (and probably other wikis), users often monitor each other's edits because of minor (and even downright silly) disputes. You don't think that anyone would be interested in monitoring a known pedophile's edits? You think that if Tyciol hadn't been blocked, no one would be watching his every on-wiki move? Then there's the e-mail issue, which we've discussed. The secret will quickly get out, and pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia, or the monitoring won't be done. It certainly is possible that an editor exposed as a pedophile will abandon that account. How does such an outcome meaningfully differ from a ban? But then, according to you, if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken. So then, according to you (I don't agree with this assertion), it *doesn't matter* if pedophiles don't disclose their pedophilia. 1. Please cite instances of pro-pedophilia editing that was tolerated for a substantial period of time. 2. In terms of content edits, it probably doesn't matter very much. I don't know about you, but I view the possibility of a pedophile using a Wikimedia site to contact potential victims as a much scarier scenario. I don't believe that it's terribly likely (because many far easier methods are readily available), but if it were to occur, it would be a hell of a lot worse than the brief appearance of pro-pedophilia propaganda in a wiki. The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia). Countless users are indefinitely blocked? Accounts are indefinitely blocked extremely often. But I was referring to the stark contrast between the edits' nature and pedophilia. The only thing remotely extraordinary about Tyciol's problematic edits was their sheer quantity. I wouldn't lump his behavior in with pedophilia, but I would lump it in with his behavior of publicly revealing that he is a pedophile (as though there's nothing wrong with that). He did things that he knew would piss everybody off, most likely with the explicit intention of pissing them off. If I'm wrong about his intention, then he's truly clueless. He struck me as quite clueless, indeed. As I noted, if it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the pedophilia issue came to light. For mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users? How are you not contradicting yourself? As noted above, I mean that the individual infractions were mundane (and most would not even have been viewed as infractions on their own). Their quantity, conversely, was ridiculous (and this resulted in a great deal of cleanup work for other editors). But even the combined effect doesn't approach the level of child abuse. I presented you with a cyberspace example - a virtual school. Is it wrong to ban pedophiles from interacting with children in a virtual school? Or do you at least agree that *that* makes sense? I do agree that it makes sense, as that's a situation in which an identified (and traceable) adult is pointedly in a position of authority and direct influence over children. Please pay particular attention to the identified (and traceable) part. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause trouble. And what do you believe is likely to occur when these pedophiles are blocked before they can cause trouble? We have no inherent justification to report their IP addresses to their ISPs or law enforcement agencies, so their accounts are merely blocked. And then what do they do? Leave? Perhaps. But the ones intent on actually using Wikipedia to recruit victims (assuming that they exist) probably will simply register new accounts (via different IP addresses, if need be), this time being careful to avoid divulging any information connecting pedophilia with their new accounts. Sounds about right. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William Herbert. There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically) significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online. Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips about possible victims in specific areas. Still, pedophiliac preying (whether on- or offline, not to speak of the coordination thereof) seems marginal at best compared to traditional run-of-the-mill child abuse which involves non-pedophiliac adults often related to the victim looking for substitute sex partners. Should those other potential perpetrators be banned as well? Do we care for their victims as much? And if we assume that it is the parents' duty to supervise their children's access to Wikipedia as content not suitable for them may be displayed, how could there be any danger to them? It would have been so much nicer if there had been a dif- ferent reason to ban this user. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: 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 expressed my opinion that banning all self-identified pedophiles is ineffectual. I then misinterpreted your response to mean that if this were true, we wouldn't be doing it. Upon further rumination, I now believe that your point was that if we'd convinced all pedophile editors to not publicly disclose their pedophilia, there would be no self-identified pedophiles for us to ban (rendering this discussion moot). Do I now understand correctly? I haven't presented such a scenario. I believe that a natural consequence of the continual bans is that over time, pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia. This means that _fewer_ pedophiles will do so, not that none will (and not that the full effect is instantaneous). [Incidentally, entourages was a typo for encourages.] 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. The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia). And again, those issues had _nothing_ to do with the ban (which would have occurred even if the user had a spotless editing record). We're discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether this particular editor was an asset to the community. (As I noted, if it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the pedophilia issue came to light.) To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring? The part in your comment (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked) How does that pertain to the editor in question? 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. I don't know whether you're correct or incorrect, but the latter is my sincere hope. We've come to a consensus, as a community, that some sort of ArbCom rulings are to be followed. 1. Please don't quote me out of context. The above implies that I seek to belittle the ArbCom, and that isn't so. I referred to some sort of ArbCom ruling because the precise nature of the decision is unclear. Contextually, I was stating that the ruling should *not* be ignored. 2. The ArbCom is a consensus-backed body, but its power is far from limitless, and there absolutely is no consensus that its actions should never be questioned. I seek to determine the nature and basis of the policy that the ArbCom is purported to have instituted. Only then would it be appropriate for the community to evaluate whether the committee acted within its authority. There is no assertion that the ArbCom's rulings should not be followed. So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be unconscionable if they are effective? No. I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I believe that a grey solution is vastly preferable to the realistic alternative. 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? I regard the statement as overly broad; it is applicable to both physical space and cyberspace, and I believe that some procedures effective in the former are impractical in the latter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Hoi, When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour, you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and dismiss it as such. Obviously you can, because you do, but in this way you undermine the integrity of the process whereby an arbitration committee comes to its conclusions. Thanks, Gerard 2009/11/30 David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com (snip) 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. (snip) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour, you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and dismiss it as such. Obviously you can, because you do, but in this way you undermine the integrity of the process whereby an arbitration committee comes to its conclusions. To what are you referring? I'm not sure that we're on the same page. If you thought that I was challenging the ArbCom's very existence, you misunderstood. Obviously, I have some serious concerns regarding the procedures that have/haven't been followed, but I fully recognize the ArbCom's importance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage, or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient, and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage. We're too patient with edit warriors and the like, but if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken. 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). My point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them. But clearly you draw a distinction between what is merely our personal opinions of them and what is a legitimate concern which affects our ability to accomplish our goals. I don't think this is the distinction on which we disagree. Rather, I think it's more your other belief that the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that they _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable. The Wikimedia Foundation has granted the community the right to decide who can and who cannot access its servers. That means we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason. 1. Suppose that the Hindi Wikipedia voted to ban Pakistani editors. Would that be acceptable? (Note that I'm not remotely equating the exclusion of pedophiles with the exclusion of a nationality; I'm addressing your claim that we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason.) 2. Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was reached to ban all known pedophiles from editing. And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone. And we base this assessment on past behavior, not hunches. Except, evidently, with pedophiles. However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration. Why is that not unconscionable? Pragmatically, it strikes me as a realistic compromise. There obviously are many users who oppose editing by pedophiles, and I believe that this would address one of the main issues (the facilitation of private communication, potentially with children). I don't believe that pedophiles are likely to seek out victims via a wiki (as there are numerous online and offline fora that are far better for making contact with people in a particular geographic area), but I understand why the concern exists. I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread. Not properly. You're welcome to respond to those posts. Otherwise, we can simply agree to disagree. 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? The problem is that they've admitted to an inability to think rationally about the topic. I certainly agree that pedophiles possess highly abnormal ideas on the subject, but that doesn't preclude them from contributing to relevant encyclopedia articles in a rational manner. By all accounts that I've seen, the editor in question did precisely that. Pedophilia-related articles are heavily monitored, and inappropriate edits (by pedophiles or anyone else) are reverted more promptly than in the majority of articles. I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of pedophilia, but not everyone's. Whose is? Is mine? I don't know. Is it? No, I condemn pedophilia. I'm just curious as to the basis of your above claim. What personal opinions should we set aside? Our condemnation of pedophiles (not pedophilia, mind you, as we certainly mustn't allow any such activities to be promoted on our wikis). 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, working hand in hand with children, creating an encyclopedia. The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William Herbert. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage, or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient, and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. 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. If we had a million perfect people begging to contribute to Wikipedia, we could be even more selective with who we allow to edit. But that's not reality. My point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them. But clearly you draw a distinction between what is merely our personal opinions of them and what is a legitimate concern which affects our ability to accomplish our goals. I don't think this is the distinction on which we disagree. Rather, I think it's more your other belief that the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that they _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable. The Wikimedia Foundation has granted the community the right to decide who can and who cannot access its servers. That means we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason. And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone. Whether or not they have engaged in misconduct in the past is not something that can be changed. We need to focus on the future when deciding who to allow to edit. However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration. Why is that not unconscionable? There's also the issue of negative publicity. I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread. Not properly. 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? The problem is that they've admitted to an inability to think rationally about the topic. I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of pedophilia, but not everyone's. Whose is? Is mine? I don't know. Is it? It means that we set aside our personal opinions and decline to judge him/her as one judges someone on trial. What personal opinions should we set aside? 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, working hand in hand with children, creating an encyclopedia. But that means our judgment should be harsher, not more lenient. Were this a trial, it *would* be unfair to judge someone for something they are likely to do, rather than something they have done. But this isn't a trial, and I'm not the one treating it like one - you are. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William Herbert. There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically) significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online. Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips about possible victims in specific areas. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George William Herbert wrote: There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically) significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online. Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips about possible victims in specific areas. I'm well aware. In fact, I produced a children's video about Internet predators for my county's public library and elementary schools. My point is that some measures commonly taken in physical space are ineffective (and possibly even detrimental) in cyberspace. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and to ban no one. Obviously not. Likewise, we have more possible outcomes than banning all known pedophiles and banning no known pedophiles. 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? Pedophile editors already have plenty of reasons to not identify themselves as such. Agreed, and I doubt that many do. 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? - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them. How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with? 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. There is no dispute that the editor caused considerable on-wiki disruption via the continual creation of numerous inappropriate redirects and disambiguation pages, and if it had been up to me, he probably would have been banned back then. But he wasn't, and none of that is remotely relevant to the matter at hand (the rationale behind this ban and others like it). 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. Had he not been blocked indefinitely by Ryan for being a pedophile, I'm fairly certain he would have been blocked by someone else for some other reason, possibly related to pedophilia, possibly not. I wouldn't have been a bit surprised. 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 editor in question apparently has engaged in none at Wikimedia wikis (the context of my statement), and as soon as an administrator discovered that he engaged in it elsewhere, he was banned. 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? 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. 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. If, for example, someone states on a message board that he/she intends to vandalise Wikipedia, I'm not suggesting that this should be ignored on the technicality that it was posted off-wiki. Likewise, if a pedophile conveys an intention to use Wikipedia as a venue for contacting potential victims, ban away. 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: 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. As I explained to George, my point is that some measures commonly taken in physical space are ineffective in cyberspace. Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with anything approaching a straight face. However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we do detect something. One is acknowledging cultural and technical reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better than random luck at finding these people. The other is disregarding any responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means. Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me. But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then we're aware and on notice. The question is, entirely, what do we do then. Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats? Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by association? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage, or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient, and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage. Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and to ban no one. 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. Pedophile editors already have plenty of reasons to not identify themselves as such. It's only the most bold and/or irrational ones that are going to do it anyway. 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 - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them. 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 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'). Had he not been blocked indefinitely by Ryan for being a pedophile, I'm fairly certain he would have been blocked by someone else for some other reason, possibly related to pedophilia, possibly not. 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? 1. Suppose that the Hindi Wikipedia voted to ban Pakistani editors. Would that be acceptable? No. (Note that I'm not remotely equating the exclusion of pedophiles with the exclusion of a nationality; I'm addressing your claim that we have the right to ban anyone, for any reason.) 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. I don't foresee the WMF stepping in and forcing us to unban pedophiles. That isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen, because banning pedophiles, unlike banning Pakistanis, is the right thing to do. 2. 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. I don't particularly like this sort of mob rule. It often makes the wrong decisions, even if in this case, it's making the right one (I'll save us the trouble and respond for you with your I don't think it is and my that's not my problem). I'd much prefer the WMF to step in and lay down the rules. But I've long ago given up hope of anything sensible like that happening. And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone. And we base this assessment on past behavior, not hunches. Except, evidently, with pedophiles. 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. However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration. Why is that not unconscionable? Pragmatically, it strikes me as a realistic compromise. Why are you willing to be pragmatic when it comes to blocking e-mail, but not when it comes to blocking editing? I agree that we shouldn't judge him/her as one judges someone on trial. Rather, we should judge him/her as one judges
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George William Herbert wrote: Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with anything approaching a straight face. However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we do detect something. One is acknowledging cultural and technical reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better than random luck at finding these people. The other is disregarding any responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means. Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me. But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then we're aware and on notice. The question is, entirely, what do we do then. Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats? In my view, we're doing nothing of the sort (and constructing a false sense of security by claiming otherwise). I doubt that many pedophiles will seek to recruit victims via our wikis, but if this occurs, these account bans are highly unlikely to counter it to any significant extent. Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by association? I see the potential for negative publicity stemming from the perception that we seek to create the illusion of improved safety and integrity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Although I do think that at the end of the day, it might be better for the community of editors to keep this kind of disruptive people blocked, I would like to counter some of the arguments I have heard in this discussion. danger to our children - come on.. If he (I assume it is a he?) wants to get in touch with children, there are many more, much more effective fora which provide less obvious evidence in case anything would happen. There are way too many eye balls around to watch if you do anything. According to US law... someone compared this situation to US law, and assumed this would be the same all over the world. I don't think this is the case. In general, I have the feeling this discussion is getting somewhat US-centric. US law is here only relevant when it has an impact through the WMF. Where I come from, a person can not even be forbidden easily to get back to his old home once he sat out his sentence. Again this is similar to the principle of innocent till proven/convicted discussion I guess. no matter what their opinion... Andre Engels suggested that because of NPOV it is important to admit this kind of people. I don't think that this would or should be the case. Wikipedia does not have to be all inclusive, because if one specific person scares away more people, that would be a valid reason to consider banning that person. The collateral damage would be too large. I think that argument flies in this discussion. However, in an ideal world I do agree with you. appeal - someone said something that highly surprised me. Apparently, the AC of enwiki 'endorsed' the blockade, but still you consider an appeal realistic? I'm sorry, but I would find the chance of honest ruling very low, nearing zero, in case if that same group of judges first endorsed the fact they have to judge... Personally, I feel that AC should never endorse stuff without it being a case submitted to them. But that might be more a side discussion. There is no slippery slope - I don't have the feeling there really is no slippery slope here. Of course there is. As soon as you start excluding one group of people for what they are, you will start excluding others, too. So this is more of a high level discussion: should we exclude people who cause significant disturbance and make other people less active in our current community? Pedophiles are just one example, and not even such an extreme one. A convicted nazi, a well known mass murderer, a high profile satanist, the pope, all do they have a profile that could hold for similar arguments (yes, there are people who wouldn't let their children near the pope). So yes, there is a slippery slope. This is no disaster, as long as we are fair enough to recognize it, and beware very carefully not to go down more then we actually want to. Lodewijk 2009/11/29, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com: I wrote: Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing. Anthony replied: Fortunately, that's not my problem. It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to participate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
appeal - someone said something that highly surprised me. Apparently, the AC of enwiki 'endorsed' the blockade, but still you consider an appeal realistic? I'm sorry, but I would find the chance of honest ruling very low, nearing zero, in case if that same group of judges first endorsed the fact they have to judge... Personally, I feel that AC should never endorse stuff without it being a case submitted to them. But that might be more a side discussion. Lodewijk An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case. If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which established his identity. But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Hello, I see a strong moral streak underlying many of the arguments in favour of banning this editor, with unsubtle arguments fronting the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. These arguments are not convincing to me; no group of people is inherently evil. Paedophilia does not lead automatically to child abuse, any more than heterosexuality leads automatically to rape. I'm sure most of us can draw the parallels to similar cases of hatred throughout history without my prompting. We should be careful about assuming that we are the sole protectors of our underaged editors, when they are far better protected by their parents, educators, and local police. Wikipedia is a very unlikely preying ground for child abusers; it is often impossible to know the age or location of a given editor, every comment is automatically archived and logged, and even if they were to find a target on Wikipedia they would need to approach them physically. Far easier to find and approach victims in the physical world, where the underaged are common and visible. Furthermore, banning an editor does not in the least change his access to our underaged contributors. This editor has contributed productively to Wikipedia since September 2005; he's been an active editor even longer than I have. In all that time, he has not demonstrated any interest I can see in child abuse, stalking, or harassment. He received 82% support in his request with 154 users commenting, many expressing concerns similar to mine. I think this rather discredits the suggestion that paedophiles disrupt or harm the community and project by their mere presence. I do not agree with banning (or blocking) any editor for purely idealogical reasons, especially a long-term editor that has already proven his worth and gained widespread support in the local wiki community. -- Yours cordially, Jesse (Pathoschild) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
(My last message incorrectly insinuates Nihonjoe himself is a paedophile, due to momentary confusion when I was writing it. Disregarding that, my arguments remain.) -- Yours cordially, Jesse (Pathoschild) On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild) pathosch...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I see a strong moral streak underlying many of the arguments in favour of banning this editor, with unsubtle arguments fronting the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. These arguments are not convincing to me; no group of people is inherently evil. Paedophilia does not lead automatically to child abuse, any more than heterosexuality leads automatically to rape. I'm sure most of us can draw the parallels to similar cases of hatred throughout history without my prompting. We should be careful about assuming that we are the sole protectors of our underaged editors, when they are far better protected by their parents, educators, and local police. Wikipedia is a very unlikely preying ground for child abusers; it is often impossible to know the age or location of a given editor, every comment is automatically archived and logged, and even if they were to find a target on Wikipedia they would need to approach them physically. Far easier to find and approach victims in the physical world, where the underaged are common and visible. Furthermore, banning an editor does not in the least change his access to our underaged contributors. This editor has contributed productively to Wikipedia since September 2005; he's been an active editor even longer than I have. In all that time, he has not demonstrated any interest I can see in child abuse, stalking, or harassment. He received 82% support in his request with 154 users commenting, many expressing concerns similar to mine. I think this rather discredits the suggestion that paedophiles disrupt or harm the community and project by their mere presence. I do not agree with banning (or blocking) any editor for purely idealogical reasons, especially a long-term editor that has already proven his worth and gained widespread support in the local wiki community. -- Yours cordially, Jesse (Pathoschild) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Fred Bauder wrote: An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case. Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it? If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which established his identity. There has been no _assertion_ of activist activity on the wiki. Shall we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their editing records? But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our midst. This is not a slippery slope argument (a contention that we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is editing. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Fred Bauder wrote: An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case. Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it? It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago. Basically it says don't discuss issues regarding pedophilia activists on-wiki; send everything to the Arbitration Committee. This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban appeals privately. If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which established his identity. There has been no _assertion_ of activist activity on the wiki. Shall we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their editing records? No, we assume good faith. But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our midst. This is not a slippery slope argument (a contention that we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is editing. Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is editing, we don't know it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. Pedophilia is different, but not different from Charlie Manson. What they have in common is seductive power which may be combined with illegal activity. This is reflected in the public opprobrium which results. Anonymous editing offers ample opportunities for drama. As we don't know who many people are, sketchy allegations outing one or another user can easily gain traction, particularly on external sites. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing. Fortunately, that's not my problem. It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to participate. The subject is Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy. I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor happened to be a pedophile. This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking pedophiles on sight. Jesse mentioned the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia editor, to be a bit far-fetched. (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being a pedophile. I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side on the issue of whether or not there's anything wrong with that. Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our midst. This is not a slippery slope argument (a contention that we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is editing. Of those three, I think neo-Nazi is the most closely analogous, and I don't see why they should be allowed in Wikipedia either. As for murderer and rapist, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If someone was convicted of murder 20 years ago and they are now out having served their time, I don't think this sets a precedent that we can ban them. On the other hand, if someone posts to message boards bragging about how they like to rape people, but that rape is legal in their country, I don't see any problem with banning them from Wikipedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In addition to Brad's very good points, I'd like to point out, if it hasn't been already, that any discussion on this topic also inevitably generates external criticism of Why does XXX editor protect pedophiles? (or even substitute Wikipedia for XXX editor). Nothing good can come of this conversation; much like nothing good came out of it the last time we had it. -Dan On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: Let me make a few basic points here. 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they should be blocked or not. 3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at best a purely theoretical one. 4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not happen. Newyorkbrad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Is that still in effect? If so, whatever slippery slope there is, has already been begun. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Is that still in effect? If so, whatever slippery slope there is, has already been begun. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l The obvious difference here being this was a ban of IP addresses owned by a particular organization, not the people behind it -- the editors of the CoS are welcome to edit from their homes or anywhere EXCEPT the IP addresses that were disrupting the project. An IP address is not a point of view. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Bod Notbod wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going. A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could usefully add stuff. A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon. A rapist might know a lot about physics. It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and let them get on with it. Just as a point of interest, do we block people currently incarcerated from editing? I have a vague recollection that one of the most voluminous contributors to the original edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, was actually a prisoner... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Is that still in effect? If so, whatever slippery slope there is, has already been begun. The obvious difference here being this was a ban of IP addresses owned by a particular organization, not the people behind it I guess I've interpreted its associates, broadly interpreted too broadly :). Seriously, how is its associates, broadly interpreted supposed to be interpreted? In any case, yes, there's a difference. But there's always a difference between the beginning of a slippery slope and the end of it. That's the whole point of a slippery slope. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Just as a point of interest, do we block people currently incarcerated from editing? I have a vague recollection that one of the most voluminous contributors to the original edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, was actually a prisoner... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Certainly he was, an insane killer. We don't block incarcerated prisoners. Prisons do that, to protect themselves and the public. Prisoners know how to do online fraud, and are good at it. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I wrote: Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it? Fred Bauder replied: It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago. Please provide a link. Basically it says don't discuss issues regarding pedophilia activists on-wiki; send everything to the Arbitration Committee. Does it also say that known pedophiles are to be banned on-sight (irrespective of their on-wiki activities)? This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban appeals privately. Such a procedural policy falls within the ArbCom's authority. An outright ban on editing by known pedophiles does not. To your knowledge, has the latter been instituted? If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist activity, it might be considered unfair to do external research which established his identity. There has been no _assertion_ of activist activity on the wiki. Shall we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their editing records? No, we assume good faith. Except with pedophiles? You just suggested that the ArbCom conduct an investigation to rule out a behavior that has not been alleged. Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is editing, we don't know it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. Right, and there is no dispute that aggressive POV pushers should be banned. Whether that POV is pro-pedophilia, pro-Nazism, pro-mainstream political position, or pro-anything (or anti-anything, for that matter), such conduct is unacceptable. We're discussing the practice of banning pedophiles who have *not* engaged in such on-wiki behavior. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: The subject is Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy. Obviously, the discussion's scope has expanded. I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor happened to be a pedophile. I never claimed that the editor in question was perfectly productive (and I noted that he created numerous inappropriate redirects and disambiguation pages), but it certainly appears that he was blocked for being a pedophile (and not because of any disruptive editing, apart from the belief that editing by a known pedophile is inherently disruptive). This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, What is? and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking pedophiles on sight. Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low? Jesse mentioned the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia editor, to be a bit far-fetched. (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being a pedophile. I reject the premise that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile inherently [doesn't] think there's anything wrong with [that]. This accurately describes some, of course, but I don't regard any of this as relevant. We routinely ban editors who habitually cause disruption (irrespective of our prior knowledge of them), and I see no need to formulate blanket assumptions that particular societal classes cannot be productive contributors. I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side on the issue of whether or not there's anything wrong with that. Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for. It's disheartening that you would equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles with approval of pedophilia. Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our midst. This is not a slippery slope argument (a contention that we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is editing. Of those three, I think neo-Nazi is the most closely analogous, and I don't see why they should be allowed in Wikipedia either. Then perhaps this is a slippery slope, after all. I'm Jewish, and I would unreservedly oppose any attempt to prohibit neo-Nazis from editing (in accordance with the same rules to which we hold other contributors). As for murderer and rapist, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Fred referred to the negative publicity that could arise if an investigative journalist were to determine that a pedophile is editing Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia wiki, I presume). Most societies condemn murder and rape with comparable vehemence. If someone was convicted of murder 20 years ago and they are now out having served their time, I don't think this sets a precedent that we can ban them. On the other hand, if someone posts to message boards bragging about how they like to rape people, but that rape is legal in their country, I don't see any problem with banning them from Wikipedia. I do. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. But you're assuming that they could then apply guilt by association which would throw egg on our face and I'm not sure that's a very fair slope to try to climb. The media, in the United States at least, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be fair. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, What is? A perfectly productive pedophile editor. and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking pedophiles on sight. Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low? I don't see anything unjust about treating someone differently because they're a pedophile. Jesse mentioned the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia editor, to be a bit far-fetched. (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being a pedophile. I reject the premise that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile inherently [doesn't] think there's anything wrong with [that]. Perhaps you're taking me out of context, then. In the case in point (and in fact I believe all the cases where pedophiles were blocked), the person was caught effectively bragging about being a pedophile, and it's hard to see how one would get caught without essentially doing just that. This accurately describes some, of course, but I don't regard any of this as relevant. We routinely ban editors who habitually cause disruption (irrespective of our prior knowledge of them), and I see no need to formulate blanket assumptions that particular societal classes cannot be productive contributors. Pedophiles are not particular societal classes, and it's ridiculous that you'd regard them as such. I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side on the issue of whether or not there's anything wrong with that. Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for. It's disheartening that you would equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles with approval of pedophilia. I don't. What I equate with a lack of willingness to judge pedophiles as wrong is when someone refers to a such a ban with a comment that We should not judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, What is? A perfectly productive pedophile editor. What do you mean by perfectly productive? We don't ban editors for being less than perfect in their contributions. Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors in good standing? and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking pedophiles on sight. Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low? I don't see anything unjust about treating someone differently because they're a pedophile. Okay, so your position is not that the degree of collateral damage (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, but that this is irrelevant (because all pedophiles deserve to be banned from editing, regardless of how they conduct themselves). Correct? Jesse mentioned the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia editor, to be a bit far-fetched. (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being a pedophile. I reject the premise that someone who openly admits to being a pedophile inherently [doesn't] think there's anything wrong with [that]. Perhaps you're taking me out of context, then. In the case in point (and in fact I believe all the cases where pedophiles were blocked), the person was caught effectively bragging about being a pedophile, and it's hard to see how one would get caught without essentially doing just that. I'm not referring to any particular case(s). Openly [admitting] to being a pedophile could apply to the public statement I struggle with a condition called pedophilia, for which I receive therapy. And yes, it also could apply to boasting. As I said, I don't view the distinction as relevant to the matter at hand. Pedophiles are not particular societal classes, and it's ridiculous that you'd regard them as such. Class: a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/class I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side on the issue of whether or not there's anything wrong with that. Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for. It's disheartening that you would equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles with approval of pedophilia. I don't. You just conveyed your suspicion that a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list condone pedophilia. What I equate with a lack of willingness to judge pedophiles as wrong is when someone refers to a such a ban with a comment that We should not judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find them. Then you've completely missed the point. What part of someone finding an opinion appalling do you associate with the absence of disapproval? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors in good standing? No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though. I don't see anything unjust about treating someone differently because they're a pedophile. Okay, so your position is not that the degree of collateral damage (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, but that this is irrelevant (because all pedophiles deserve to be banned from editing, regardless of how they conduct themselves). Correct? No. I *am* saying that a degree of collateral damage (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, and acceptable. But I'm also saying that this has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. Openly [admitting] to being a pedophile could apply to the public statement I struggle with a condition called pedophilia, for which I receive therapy. Yes, if you ignore the context in which I said it, of which my footnote was part. You just conveyed your suspicion that a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list condone pedophilia. Yes. And it's more than just a suspicion. Many Wikipedians on this mailing list have said things which have brought me to this conclusion, but on and off the list. I could start naming names, but that'd probably get me into trouble. What I equate with a lack of willingness to judge pedophiles as wrong is when someone refers to a such a ban with a comment that We should not judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find them. Then you've completely missed the point. What part of someone finding an opinion appalling do you associate with the absence of disapproval? The part about not judging them, and the referring to pedophilia as an opinion. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Without picking on anyone in particular, I urge everyone to go back and reread Brad's comment earlier. This conversation is following the path that public discussions on this have repeatedly before. It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are appropriate or necessary for the Foundation to deal with. The English language Wikipedia policy, slightly codified as it is, has been stated and explained. If you want to discuss that further I would recommend taking it to Wikien-L, or start a policy discussion on-Wiki. If you have a specific claim that the Foundation has to or should intervene please state that, simply and concisely. Otherwise, in my opinion, this is going far afield from appropriate on Foundation-l. I am not a list mod and have no pretense that I can make the conversation go away. But - please consider if you're holding a productive conversation, and please consider if it's even vaguely in the right place. Thanks. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I think a lot of people are missing the point. The entire aim of pedophile advocacy is to get non-pedophiles to view pedophilia as a life style choice or something akin to a sexual orientation. It's not. The practice of pedophilia is illegal pretty much everywhere. If we allow self-identified pedophiles to edit our projects, particularly those who insist on proclaiming this proclivity on-wiki - we are permitting even facilitating pedophile advocacy. IMHO FWIW, Beth (Versageek) w...@versageek.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I wrote: Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors in good standing? Anthony replied: No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though. Please elaborate. Okay, so your position is not that the degree of (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, but that this is irrelevant (because all pedophiles deserve to be banned from editing, regardless of how they conduct themselves). Correct? No. I *am* saying that a degree of collateral damage (the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, and acceptable. But I'm also saying that this has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. To clarify, assuming that the aforementioned collateral damage can be prevented, do you believe that pedophiles who are productive editors should be permitted to edit? Regardless, please explain why we shouldn't simply ban unproductive/disruptive editors (irrespective of whether we know them to be pedophiles). Openly [admitting] to being a pedophile could apply to the public statement I struggle with a condition called pedophilia, for which I receive therapy. Yes, if you ignore the context in which I said it, of which my footnote was part. That context simply wasn't stated. But okay, I accept that you were referring to a situation in which someone boasts about his/her pedophilia. 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'll reiterate that I don't view the distinction as relevant, but I'm curious as to what you think. You just conveyed your suspicion that a number of Wikipedians on this very mailing list condone pedophilia. Yes. And it's more than just a suspicion. Many Wikipedians on this mailing list have said things which have brought me to this conclusion, but on and off the list. I could start naming names, but that'd probably get me into trouble. 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). 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. and the referring to pedophilia as an opinion. An appalling opinion. Construing this as a lack of disapproval is rubbish. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George William Herbert wrote: It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are appropriate or necessary for the Foundation to deal with. If the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has created a policy prohibiting editing by all known pedophiles, I believe that it has overstepped its bounds. (I say if because I have not yet received a response to my question of whether the ArbCom has enacted such a policy.) Such an issue is a Foundation-level matter. If you have a specific claim that the Foundation has to or should intervene please state that, simply and concisely. I believe that the Foundation should intervene, at least to the extent of questioning the ArbCom and fully ascertaining the nature of this very murky situation. (I realize that there might be sensitive details to which the general community should not be privy.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Beth wrote: If we allow self-identified pedophiles to edit our projects, particularly those who insist on proclaiming this proclivity on-wiki - we are permitting even facilitating pedophile advocacy. What about those who do *not* issue such proclamations on-wiki? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative journalist could have done it. But you're assuming that they could then apply guilt by association which would throw egg on our face and I'm not sure that's a very fair slope to try to climb. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In a message dated 11/29/2009 11:43:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: We don't block incarcerated prisoners. Prisons do that, to protect themselves and the public. Prisoners know how to do online fraud, and are good at it. *Some* prisons do it, some do the exact opposite. http://www.google.com/search?q=internet+access+prisonie=utf-8oe=utf-8; aq=trls=org.mozilla:en-US:official ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In a message dated 11/29/2009 12:55:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: The media, in the United States at least, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be fair. My use of the word fair was to be applied to ourselves, not to the media. It is not fair for us to decide that because someone else might do something, that we must do something pre-emptive. Anybody might do anything. That doesn't mean we *must* take action on something that may occur. That is the slope to which I was referring. And that is the fairness or lack thereof that I see in this situation. Is pedophilia the sole property against which we have this supposed (but so far completely undocumented) procedure? Numerous times this so-called policy has been requested only to be redirected to in some cases, statements that say the exact opposite. Funny isn't it? Memory is a tricky thing. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on Wikipedia harms the project. The issue isn't that [a certain kind of] activism harms the project. Most POV activism by definition is harmful from an objective/neutral point of view. And what constitutes harm is subjective, or in need of clear explanation. Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: What they have in common is seductive power which may be combined with illegal activity. This is reflected in the public opprobrium which results. Note that the ambiguity in age of consent laws limits the applicability of a term like illegal here. For example, often times the term pedophilia is misapplied to cases of ephebophila. Pedophilia more correctly refers to the attraction that repressed and diminished people have toward small and bright young people. Ephebophilia on the other hand remains the law in many countries (and high schools) around the world. Canada is a notable example, even though it recently raised its age of consent to 16 - apparently overturning over 100 years of tradition there - before 2008 it was 14 (before ~1900, it was 12). So, if there were any value to discussions like these at all, it would at least help if people could avoid using terms like illegal and underage that are subject to legal and cultural ambiguity, and paedo- which can be too general. This problematic terminology was present in (and thus weakened) even the original premise of this thread - pedophilia activism is largely a misnomer for those promote molestation and rape. The concept of public opprobrium thus needs to be put into the context of this ambiguity, along with the typical modern neuroses - safety panics, protectionist parenting, and mass media in particular. Also bearing are the popular political objections toward the development of truly international concepts of law. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
[I] am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though. Please elaborate. 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. To clarify, assuming that the aforementioned collateral damage can be prevented, do you believe that pedophiles who are productive editors should be permitted to edit? Along with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, maybe. 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. Regardless, please explain why we shouldn't simply ban unproductive/disruptive editors (irrespective of whether we know them to be pedophiles). I think I explained that above. Too much work for too little benefit. There's also the issue of negative publicity. 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. And their [[Special:EmailUser]] privileges should either be revoked or, with their explicit agreement, monitored. I don't know if that would be worth it, though. 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. I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of pedophilia, but not everyone's. 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. and the referring to pedophilia as an opinion. An appalling opinion. Construing this as a lack of disapproval is rubbish. 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Foundation level issue is whether or not a community have the right to exclude a specific class or category of users from editing based upon unsubstantiated claims of potential misbehavior? From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 2:45:15 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy Without picking on anyone in particular, I urge everyone to go back and reread Brad's comment earlier. This conversation is following the path that public discussions on this have repeatedly before. It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are appropriate or necessary for the Foundation to deal with. The English language Wikipedia policy, slightly codified as it is, has been stated and explained. If you want to discuss that further I would recommend taking it to Wikien-L, or start a policy discussion on-Wiki. If you have a specific claim that the Foundation has to or should intervene please state that, simply and concisely. Otherwise, in my opinion, this is going far afield from appropriate on Foundation-l. I am not a list mod and have no pretense that I can make the conversation go away. But - please consider if you're holding a productive conversation, and please consider if it's even vaguely in the right place. Thanks. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4we really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue. It's my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policyas it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter. Best, --- Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Jake, It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected characteristic. I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol Fred In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4we really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue. It's my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policyas it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter. Best, --- Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on Wikipedia harms the project. Fred Jake, It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected characteristic. I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol Fred In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4we really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue. It's my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policyas it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter. Best, --- Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on Wikipedia harms the project. Fred Jake, It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected characteristic. I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol Fred In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4 we really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue. It's my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policyas it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter. Best, --- Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users. The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores, political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can participate and how. However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal. It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even there. What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community, and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they are and them being open about it. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users. That sounds reasonable to me; but it should be made clear. We can't have a foundation policy that appears to contradict this, and if this is the standard we are going to follow it should be written down. The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores, political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can participate and how. However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal. It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even there. There is a difference between having a disorder and acting on it. The former is of course legal. What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community, and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they are and them being open about it. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a template. It states *This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.* On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the non discrimination policy should be construed to apply to the communities: the policy says that it applies to the Wikimedia Foundation and makes no mention of the projects or volunteers. Note also that it is listed under Board and staff on the navigation template (the policies that apply to the projects are listed above). In any event, paraphilias are not legally protected characteristics. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users. The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores, political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can participate and how. However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal. It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even there. What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community, and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they are and them being open about it. I strongly disagree. We should not judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find them, but by whether or not they are capable and willing to edit in an NPOV manner despite their ideas and opinions. If that brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. Neutrality to me is important enough an aspect of Wikipedia that I am willing to take the risk of some disrepute for it. As for your other arguments: We should be watching _everyone_ to make sure they don't start advocating or preying on underage users, not just self-identified pedophile activists. In fact, I think that pedophile advocacy is a kind of advocacy we actually have to watch over _less_ than other kinds of advocacy. The farther away a position is from the mainstream, the more readily advocacy for that advocacy will be recognized even if one is not looking for it. And few opinions are as far from the mainstream as pedophile advocacy is. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior? Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt the community, so lets block em! From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 1:37:55 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users. The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores, political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can participate and how. However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal. It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even there. What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community, and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they are and them being open about it. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I am going by the text. The Credit Card Usage Policy and the Pluralism, Internationalism, and Diversity Policy also carry that boilerplate, but they very clearly do not apply to the projects. Indeed, the Code of Conduct Policy specifically states that it not a policy for community members. Still, I agree with you that an official statement would be welcome. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.comwrote: This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a template. It states *This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.* On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the non discrimination policy should be construed to apply to the communities: the policy says that it applies to the Wikimedia Foundation and makes no mention of the projects or volunteers. Note also that it is listed under Board and staff on the navigation template (the policies that apply to the projects are listed above). In any event, paraphilias are not legally protected characteristics. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
It's important to keep in mind what the enforceability (or lack thereof) of whatever determination we make will be. That is, pedophiles will always be able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. All we can do is prevent them from using their real identities or declaring their orientation (for lack of a better word). --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: That is, pedophiles will always be able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. What? Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles? Change it how? When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that says Are you a paedophile: YES/NO and they can click through? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I wasn't saying we should. --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: That is, pedophiles will always be able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. What? Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles? Change it how? When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that says Are you a paedophile: YES/NO and they can click through? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Andre Engels wrote: If [allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. Fred Bauder replied: It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After all, wikis (and Wikipedia in particular) are widely criticised because the ability of anyone to edit sometimes leads to inaccuracies and other undesirable content. But of course, we mustn't do that (despite the fact that it would rectify a flaw that leads to disrepute), because it would fundamentally alter the wikis' nature in an unacceptable manner. This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with? Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported to be). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: but what sort of project are we left with? Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Bod Notbod wrote: Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going. A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could usefully add stuff. A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon. A rapist might know a lot about physics. It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and let them get on with it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Bod Notbod wrote: Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going. A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could usefully add stuff. A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon. A rapist might know a lot about physics. It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and let them get on with it. I agree. When users edit the wikis to reflect pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything) agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether they've provided advance indication that such an issue might arise). There's a world of difference between the block rationale you edited badly and the block rationale you didn't edit badly, but you're a bad person. We stand to draw more negative attention to ourselves by deeming certain people bad than by allowing said users to edit under the same rules as everyone else. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with? Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported to be). We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content. There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists, Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our reputation or integrity of content. Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do. There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings. Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act. We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project. I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. When users edit the wikis to reflect pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything) agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether they've provided advance indication that such an issue might arise). I agree. Ages ago I saw someone editing that believed in child abuse. Their argument was that there was a historical basis for it, going back to the Greeks or somesuch. There wasn't much I could do about it because we're all essentially just people on the internet, and he wasn't actually saying he had committed a sex-crime that one could report. I think this issue is something we don't have to worry about too much. People like that will be few and far between; if people start agitating for criminal beliefs I think the community can handle it. They'll be rightly despised in our community as much as they are in real life. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George William Herbert wrote: We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content. Integrity of content? Please elaborate. There is no slippery slope. I haven't argued otherwise. Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do. And banning self-identified pedophiles increases our users' safety...how? Is it remotely realistic to assume that most pedophiles will publicly identify themselves as such (and never seek to register another account)? Of course not, and we're only encouraging them to keep quiet (thereby increasing the likelihood that any improper actions will go undetected). It's clear that this is a PR issue, and there is validity to the assertion that allowing known pedophiles to edit would generate negative publicity. But would it generate more negative publicity than the alternative (banning good editors and driving pedophiles underground)? I'm skeptical. And either way, I believe that such a practice contradicts the fundamental principles on which our community is based. There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings. Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act. You're making the mistake of equating physical space to cyberspace. In physical space, pedophiles are identifiable and traceable. We're dealing with an anonymous setting. A known pedophile is less of a threat than an unknown one, and banning the former only creates incentive to remain the latter (which is as simple as not saying I'm a pedophile.). Our child editors are no safer. We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project. I've addressed the PR issue, and I'd be very interested to read about the governmental action. I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded. I also wish to read the policy. Where is it published? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going. A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could usefully add stuff. A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon. A rapist might know a lot about physics. It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and let them get on with it. What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics? Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality. 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. 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. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Let me make a few basic points here. 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they should be blocked or not. 3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at best a purely theoretical one. 4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not happen. Newyorkbrad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others.I don't like it is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on suspect grounds. From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 4:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with? Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported to be). We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content. There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists, Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our reputation or integrity of content. Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do. There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings. Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act. We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project. I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Newyorkbrad wrote: There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they should be blocked or not. What about users who make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Which policy? If someone inserts a sentence into an article without including a reliable source, have they broken policy? 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). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logtype=blockpage=User%3ATyciol Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I wrote: Are the edits in accordance with policy? Anthony replied: Which policy? If someone inserts a sentence into an article without including a reliable source, have they broken policy? I'll rephrase the question: Are the edits discernible from those that we expect from a contributor in good standing? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logtype=blockpage=User%3ATyciol Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one. Your point being? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: What about users who make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia? I can't believe nobody's told a wikipaedophile joke yet. I went to the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago, watched a stand up comedian, and he asked does anyone know this fact? I said yes, I do. He said how come? I said, I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and the whole audience laughed and the comedian said I thought you were going down a dangerous path there. I have no idea why we're discussing this. There can't be many paedophile editors and the ones that exist should be dealt with by the police. We're a community. Asking whether we should be concerned about paedophiles within our community is like walking into a pub and wondering who abuses children. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one. Your point being? Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit inappropriately appears to be incorrect. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit inappropriately appears to be incorrect. I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban (and unless I've missed something, Ryan hasn't cited past on-wiki issues as a factor). It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia and was not engaged in disruptive editing at the time of the ban (apart from the belief that editing by a known pedophile is inherently disruptive). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit inappropriately appears to be incorrect. I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally. It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say one way or the other, especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say one way or the other, especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked. I should add that I don't have access to the user's deleted edits. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally. Okay, but I don't see the relevance. It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say one way or the other, As far as I know, there has been no assertion that the user has edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia (and in fact, edits to pedophilia-related articles were examined and found to be neutral). especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked. Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing. I should add that I don't have access to the user's deleted edits. Virtually all of them are the creation of since-deleted redirects and disambiguation pages. I recall the massive disruption that they caused (and Tyciol's stubborn insistence that the community was wrong about their harmfulness) and view this as a much stronger rationale for a ban than what is currently under discussion. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked. Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing. Fortunately, that's not my problem. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
I wrote: Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing. Anthony replied: Fortunately, that's not my problem. It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to participate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
