Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM, David Levy 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 ped

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 hav

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 founda

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 na

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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

George Herbert 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 vi

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'

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. > > Ho

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy 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 i

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

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.

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Levy 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 pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Levy 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

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

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

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

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 ag

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

, 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 repea

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 pus

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Fred Bauder 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 constit

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 fo

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 exac

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 o

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? __

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 overstep

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. > >

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-identif

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 Found

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy 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 do

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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy 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. >

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 t

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 pedoph

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

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 >

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for >>> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. >> >> "All IP addresses owned or

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy 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 poi

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 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, bro

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder 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

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 con

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 dispe

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

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 c

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) wrote: > Hello, > > I see a strong

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

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 endorse

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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM, David Levy 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. __

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy 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, especi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy 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 lit

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 W

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.wikimed

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM, David Levy 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 fac

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 contribut

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, David Levy 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 t

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 ma

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 wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

nfranchise people on suspect grounds. From: George Herbert To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 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 wrote

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy 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 sar

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 elab

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM, David Levy 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy 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 sor

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 go

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy 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 whe

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 fou

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, David Levy 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. ___ f

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 Wikipe

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 wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: > > > That is, pedophiles will always be > > able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. > > What? > > Radical

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg 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

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 the

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.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

! From: George Herbert To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 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 wrote: > I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but in

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > 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 permanentl

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > 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 permanent

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jake Wartenberg wrote: > It's > my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty > clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the > Foundation >as > it is written now. > > I d

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg 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-

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 wrote: > Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on > Wikipedia harms the projec

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 requi

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 a

[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipediawe 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 discr