QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:13pm)
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:46pm)
What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?
There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.
Count me among those who simply cannot understand where they're coming from. I wish we could chalk their behavior up to the strangeness of their own sexual proclivities, but I don't think that explains it. Silver Seren is a "furry," which I find extremely bizarre, but until now I thought that he was a rational, fairly smart person nevertheless. After reading his comments about this situation, I think there might be something seriously wrong with him -- and with Mattbuck, Saibo, Niabot, Russavia, and the rest. This isn't just a misguided belief in "free culture" and other Wikipedia ideals. There is something that's genuinely off about the way they're thinking about this entire affair, and it's disturbing.
That's really the word that has to be used here. In all my years of participating in and observing Wikipedia, this group of users might be the most disturbing of all those I've seen -- and that's saying something.
(Silver Seren is welcome to defend himself here, of course.)
What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.
Really, it comes down to two possible situations.
1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.
or
2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?