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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
!
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
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.
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
85 matches
Mail list logo
